John McCain and ‘Allahu Akbar’

john_mccain_syria_visitBy Robert Spencer:

Tuesday morning, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) got a bit hot under the collar when Brian Kilmeade of Fox News noted that the Syrian rebels whom Barack Obama and McCain want to aid militarily were shouting “Allahu akbar! Allahu akbar!” as rockets hit Syrian government offices. McCain’s response to Kilmeade demonstrated not only his ignorance of Islam, but his abysmal misjudgment of what is happening in Syria. And on the basis of that ignorance, he is aiding Obama’s rush to yet another war.

“I have a problem,” Kilmeade said, “helping those people screaming that after a hit.” That incensed McCain, who shot back: “Would you have a problem with an American or Christians saying ‘thank God? Thank God?’ That’s what they’re saying. Come on! Of course they’re Muslims, but they’re moderates and I guarantee you they are moderates.”

Wrong on all counts. In the first place, it does not mean “thank God,” as McCain seems to have affirmed when he said, “That’s what they’re saying.” Allahu akbar means “Allah is greater” – not, as it is often translated, “God is great.” The significance of this is enormous, as it is essentially a proclamation of superiority and supremacism. Allah is greater – than any of the gods of the infidels, and Islam is superior to all other religions. states this obliquely: “Allahu akbar implies that God is superior to all tangible and intangible, temporal and celestial beings.” This may seem to be an innocuous theological statement until one recalls that Islam has always had a political aspect, and Islamic jihadists always shout “Allahu akbar” when attacking infidels. It is a declaration of the superiority of their god and their way of life over those of their victims. 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta also stated that it was meant to make the infidels afraid. He wrote instructions to jihadists that were found in his baggage: “Shout, ‘Allahu Akbar,’ because this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers.”

In equating this war cry, which we recently saw Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood members shouting as they destroyed a church and tore off its cross, with “thank God,” McCain was manifesting the moral equivalence that is not only fashionable these days, but required for acceptance into polite society. Only wretched “Islamophobes” don’t accept the mainstream media and government dogma that Christianity is just as likely as Islam to incite its adherents to violence. That there aren’t any Christians anywhere shouting “thank God” as they fire rockets at anyone doesn’t deter McCain from making this equivalence. Religious dogmas, and that’s what the idea that Christianity and Islam are equally violent is, are not subject to the same standards of evidentiary proof as are more mundane realities.

And he guarantees that the Syrian rebels are moderates? This is the John McCain who, according to Lebanon’s Daily Star, “was unwittingly photographed with a known affiliate of the rebel group responsible for the kidnapping of 11 Lebanese Shiite pilgrims one year ago, during a brief and highly publicized visit inside Syria” in May.

Read more at PJ Media



Don’t rescue the Muslim Brotherhood

3983067811CSP, By Frank Gaffney:

Ever since President Obama came to office, his administration has cultivated relations with, legitimated, emboldened, empowered, funded and even armed the Muslim Brotherhood.  This policy has amounted to our changing sides in what is best described as the War for the Free World.

As documented in a free online, video-based course I produced last year (, one of the factors behind this strategically disastrous – and largely unnoted – reversal is the success the Brotherhood has had, going back at least to the Clinton administration, in penetrating and running influence operations against our country.  The Brothers call it “civilization jihad.”  And it has enabled them to establish not only an array of front groups to insinuate themselves into American civil society institutions and governing agencies.  It has also largely obscured the true nature of this organization and the threat it poses to our nation, allies and interests.

The success of such patient, stealthy subversion is much in evidence at the moment in the response to events in Egypt on the part of some prominent Democrats and Republicans, alike.  In recent days, President Obama and Senators like Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, and Republicans John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Kelly Ayotte of Arizona, South Carolina and New Hampshire, respectively, have discussed the need to cut off assistance to those in Egypt now battling the Muslim Brotherhood.

The principal justification offered for doing so is that the Egyptian people elected the Brotherhood to run their country after America’s longtime ally, Hosni Mubarak, was overthrown, with the support of the Obama administration.  It is further being intensified by the Brothers’ success in forcing the government to resort to violence to establish order throughout Cairo and other cities.

The trouble is that the bloodshed now taking place in Egypt – including that of Christians at the hands of Islamists who have torched or otherwise damaged more than eighty churches in recent days – is just a foretaste of what is to come if we do as the aforementioned leaders have in mind and rescue the Muslim Brotherhood.  And some of that blood will inevitably be ours.

This unhappy prospect is inevitable because of a fact obscured by the Brotherhood’s successful influence operations, and ignored at our peril:  We know for a fact that the Muslim Brotherhood has as its mission the worldwide imposition of Islam’s toxic, brutally repressive and anti-constitutional supremacist doctrine known as shariah.  And yes, it means here, too.

Lest there be any confusion on that point, consider the 1991 mission statement of the Muslim Brotherhood in America: “It is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within…sabotaging its miserable house from within…by [our] hands and the hands of the believers so that God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”  The strategic plan from which this passage comes was introduced into evidence during the successful 2008 federal prosecution of Muslim Brotherhood operatives in Dallas, Texas in connection with their fundraising in this country for the organization’s Palestinian franchise: the designated terrorist organization known as Hamas.

Senators McCain and Graham have also provided bipartisan political cover to the Islamists’ efforts to takeover other countries, as well.  These include, notably, Libya and Syria.  The former has been a debacle of the first order; the murderous attack on our missions and personnel in Benghazi is but a taste of what is to come there and beyond.  And these lawmakers are working with Team Obama to inject the United States into the latter’s civil war, with the predictable practical effect of helping the Brotherhood and/or al Qaeda take over that country next.

As in these other places, if the Muslim Brotherhood’s American friends have their way in Egypt – most immediately, by cutting off U.S. aid or other ties to its military – the killing will not stop.  It will, instead, mean those dying will increasingly be people who have historically looked to us as allies and partners.  And they will be dispatched by jihadists bent on our destruction, as well.

It seems the military and tens of millions of ordinary citizens in Egypt have no intention of rolling over, as their counterparts have done in Turkey.  In that case, an Islamist regime has used elections to destroy democracy and institute an increasingly shariah-compliant order – complete with the incarceration on trumped-up charges of much of the leadership of the Turkish armed forces.  Having tried and failed to effect a similar transformation in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood seems now determined to crush its opponents through full-scale civil war.  Were the United States to cut off Egypt’s military, it would simply encourage and perhaps enable the Muslim Brotherhood to pursue that course.

Even worse from our point of view, the United States will likely drive the Egyptian military back into the arms of the Russians – and possibly this time the Chinese – folks who would love to displace us and secure close relations with a nation that sits astride the strategic Suez Canal.  These are, after all, countries now seen, unlike America, to be reliable allies, not fair-weather friends.

The Muslim Brotherhood is our enemy.  Insisting on its restoration to power – either immediately or through another round of premature elections – will be perilous for this country and for people in Egypt and elsewhere who do not want to submit to the Islamists and their anti-freedom shariah agenda.

Pro-Morsi Demonstrations Make MB Ties Harder to Hide

The Muslim Brotherhood’s False Appeal

Muslim-Brotherhood_2013345cThe lazy assumption that when the Muslim Brotherhood switched from the bomb to the ballot box, it did more than switch means, it also switched ends, doesn’t hold up. Not when examining the tactics of Islamists in power from Turkey to Tunisia to Egypt. Islamists are as violent in power as they are out of power. It isn’t disenfranchisement that radicalizes them. It’s their belief in Islamic rule that does.

By :

We spend a great deal of time talking about the Muslim Brotherhood’s networks, its agents of influence and the structural elements of its infrastructure. But it may be worth exploring a more basic question.

What is its appeal?

This isn’t an inquiry about the appeal of the Muslim Brotherhood and its varied front groups to the educated and wealthy Muslims who make up its key demographic.

The Brotherhood promises the Sunni Arab elites that they can stay on top while beating the West by making Islam into as compelling a method of national and international governance as the freedom and free trade that upended their feudal societies.  So it’s no great mystery why a Cal-Tech student from Egypt will join the MSA. It offers him a heady combination of community, power, revenge and destiny.

What is more interesting is the appeal of the Muslim Brotherhood, a reactionary Islamist terrorist organization with a history of Nazi collaboration that stands for theocracy, to the Western politicians who have come flocking to it as the last best hope for stability in the Middle East.

A glimmer of that false hope can be seen in the Washington Post editorial that Senator McCain and Senator Graham penned after a disastrous visit in which they failed to pressure the Egyptian authorities to free Muslim Brotherhood detainees.

Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, McCain and Graham warned ominously, “is a former member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood who was radicalized during the violent crackdowns and detentions of Brotherhood leaders by previous Egyptian regimes. “  And if the Muslim Brotherhood isn’t given a chance to take power, the two politicians implicitly conclude, a new generation of Al Qaeda will be born.

Every single Al Qaeda leader, including Bin Laden, had actually been a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Somehow Bin Laden turned to terror without the benefit of any Egyptian crackdown.

McCain and Graham’s thinking shows the logical flaw that allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to seduce the West. They focus on the “radicalization” of Ayman al-Zawahiri as a matter of means, not of ends.

The difference between Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, a difference that so many politicians have made their talking point in support for the Brotherhood, does not hinge on the nature of the society that both want to bring about, but on the tactics they use to bring that society about.

It’s not that there are no differences between them, but they are comparable to the ones between the Bolsheviks and the Trotskyites, rather than between the Labour Party and the Bolsheviks. The distinction is occasionally crucial to dogmatic insiders, but irrelevant to us in terms of the violence and warfare that we would inevitably face from such a regime in the long term.

As every leftist activist knows, moderation is a strategy.  Terrorism is also a strategy. Strategies can be revealing, but objectives are much more revealing.

The terrorism-or-democracy fallacy treats Islamists as “bad” if they blow up buildings in order to build a theocracy, but “good” if they compete in elections to build a theocracy. It prioritizes process over outcome and its logic suggests that we should have no objections to Hitler and Stalin if they had come to power as part of a pure democratic process. Or worse still, bet that democracy would moderate them.


Is a democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood really better than a violent Muslim Brotherhood opposition? Even if the goal is to shut down terrorism, a regime in one of the largest countries in the region that supports terrorism is far more of a threat than that same regime as a terrorist opposition.

Read more at Front Page


Lindsey Graham, “Democracy has a way of moderating everything”

John McCain: America’s Staunchest Supporter of Radical Islam?



If there was still any doubt that America’s leadership is in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamists in general, Senators John McCain’s and Lindsay Graham’s recent visit to Egypt has singlehandedly removed it, first and foremost among Egyptians themselves, leading to much criticism.  A top media advisor to Egypt’s interim president accused McCain of distorting facts around to the benefit of the Brotherhood, dismissing he remarks as “irrational,” or, more colloquially, “moronic.”    The leader of the youth movement, Tamarod (or “Rebellion” against the Brotherhood) which played a great role in mobilizing Egypt’s millions to launch the June 30 Revolution said “We reject John McCain and call on the international community to let the [Egyptian] people decide their own fate.”  Other Egyptians, likeAhmed al-Zind, head of the Egyptian Judge Club,  have gone as far as to call for the arrest and trial of john McCain for trying to destroy Egypt.

Only when one considers the pro-Brotherhood words and deeds of John McCain in the last few days in Egypt can one begin to understand why he has earned the ire of millions Egyptians-from the military and interim government, to the average Egyptian-setting U.S-Egypt relations that much further back, and all for the sake of the Brotherhood.  As one incensed TV commentator asserted, “These two men have made bolder demands than the Brotherhood-Morsi, Shatter, Badie-themselves!”

First, McCain still insists on calling the June 30 Revolution-which saw many millions of Egyptians take to the streets to call for the ouster of the Brotherhood-a military coup.  Either McCain doesn’t want to accept reality, or, like many Americans, he’s been fed a very false reality, one manufactured by Al Jazeera and promulgated by Anne Patterson, a false reality that claims most Egyptians are for Morsi and that the military simply overthrew him against the popular will.  Al Jazeera has gone so far as portraying images of millions of anti-Morsi protesters as pro-Morsi protesters (and picked up and disseminated by Western media).  Several Al Jazeera correspondents have even resigned because Al Jazeera wantonly reneged on journalism’s code of ethics in order to become the Brotherhood’s international mouthpiece.

Incidentally, if McCain considers the ouster of an Islamist government as a military coup, why doesn’t he extend that distinction to Mubarak’s more moderate government, which was also removed by the military in response to popular protests?  If one argues that Morsi was democratically elected and Mubarak wasn’t, then why was the U.S. giving Egypt billions in aid for all those years, which legitimized Mubarak’s government no less than Morsi’s?  Even the Obama administration has been sensible enough not to call the June 30 revolution a coup and even distanced itself from McCain’s remarks-only to be attacked by the unhinged McCain, who condemned John Kerry’s comment that “the military did not take over.”  On the other hand, McCain praised Bill Burns, Syria’s former U.S. ambassador, who has been accused of playing an important role in empowering the jihadis against the Syrian government, and is set to become the new ambassador to Egypt.  About him, McCain said that “as far as Bill Burns, I have great confidence in him and the work that he does.”

Then there’s McCain’s insistence that all arrested Brotherhood members and other Islamists be released.  He seems to overlook the fact that Brotherhood leadership, beginning with Muhammad Morsi, are under arrest and awaiting trial due to some very serious charges, from inciting terrorism and causing the murder of Egyptians, to grand treason and conspiring with foreign powers against Egypt’s interests.  If McCain was simply interested in the human rights of the incarcerated Brotherhood members, as he claims, one wonders why he and the U.S. administration have been incredibly silent about the fate of Hosni Mubarak, America’s closest Mideast ally for three decades.  If anything, Morsi is facing much more serious charges than Mubarak, yet here is McCain calling for his release while ignoring the “human rights” of the other.

If anything, McCain’s call to release Brotherhood leadership only validates the widespread belief in Egypt that America’s leadership are fellow conspirators with the Brotherhood, fearful that if Morsi and others do stand trial, any number of ugly revelations-ties, conspiracies, the exchange of billions of dollars and Sinai-would be made.   In other words, the fear is that, if the Brotherhood is tried, they will spill the beans as to the nature of their cozy relationship with the U.S. government.

Similarly, McCain personally checked up on Khairat al-Shatter, the deputy chief of the Muslim Brotherhood, currently incarcerated on charges of treason.  Interestingly, Shatter wasn’t even a member of Morsi’s government, begging the question: why is McCain interested in a civilian-one who also happens to be a pivotal figure in the largest Islamist organization in the world?  Even Shatter himself, understanding how bad it looked, asked the senators to go visit and speak to Muhammad Morsi instead.  Of course, the administration’s ties to Khaiarat al-Shatter, the multi-millionaire Islamist, is well known among Egyptians-ambassador Anne Patterson was frequently seen going to and fro from the residence of this “civilian”-and McCain’s visit only further validated this unholy tie in Egypt’s mind.

Numerous Egyptian commentators have also pointed out that McCain repeatedly dodged critical questions by Egyptian journalists present at the conference.  For example, when asked about the fact that the Brotherhood in Rab’a was armed and killing and with the aid of al-Qaeda creating terror in Egypt, McCain ignored the question.  This, of course is in keeping with the fact that McCain also has no answer to the question as to why he is also the staunchest supporter of the jihad in Syria, which has torn the nation apart, seen the slaughter and displacement of untold thousands of Christians, and the destruction of their churches, by foreign jihadis whom McCain is in favor of arming.

Read more: Family Security Matters 

It’s Obama, McCain, Graham who made ‘huge mistake’ in Egypt

660-McCain-Graham-Egypt-APWith their current stance on Egypt, President Obama, Sens. John McCain and Lindsay Graham are risking one of America’s most crucial alliances.

By Raymond Stock:

On their current trip to Cairo, Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), two of President Barack Obama’s most persistent critics on everything in foreign policy from Syria to Benghazi, have found common cause with him at last.

All three fear that the anti-American (and generally anti-human) Muslim Brotherhood (MB), whom they mistakenly see as “moderate,” will disappear from the halls of power in Egypt, our most important Arab ally.  They also evidently worry that the MB’s leading figures, such as now-deposed (and arrested) President Mohamed Morsi—who had awarded himself powers greater than any previous ruler in Egypt’s history—will not be free to plot a return to power in an ancient nation that he had nearly destroyed in only one year.

Echoing earlier White House warnings, the two senior senators suggested that we may cut off our $1.6 billion in annual (mainly military) aid, the very tie that binds our countries together, as it has for more than thirty preciously peaceful years.  Not to comply with their demands, McCain and Graham said August 6, would be—as Graham put it–a “huge mistake.”

The White House, McCain and Graham have warned that the aid may be cut if the MB’s leaders are not freed from detention—they have been under arrest since President Mohammed Morsi was overthrown July 3 by the military in response to the historically huge popular demonstrations at the end of June.  (Morsi has since been charged for having been part of a 2011 prison break alleged to have been carried out by Hamas.)

They further demand that the MB be brought into the new transitional government of technocrats appointed by the quietly charismatic (and mysteriously Islamist, but apparently independent) strongman minister of defense, General Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi–who had himself been appointed by Morsi.  That new government, headed by Adly Mansour (a Supreme Constitutional Court justice) as interim president and respected economist Dr. Hazem Beblawi as prime minister, claims it has reached out to the MB, which refuses to respond to its overtures.  Meanwhile, the Islamists are gathered in two major squares in Cairo, waiting for the security forces to clear them away—and for the chance to be martyred when they do.

Read more at Fox News


On The Wrong Side of History

By Ralph H. Sidway:

In perhaps the most significant reversal of political and global alignment since the overthrow of Christian Russia by the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, Barack Hussein Obama has transformed the United States of America from a Christian-centric, Western democratic republic, into an Islamist-enabling oligarchy drowning in Soviet-style scandals, casting a long, dark shadow across hundreds of millions of innocent victims the world over.

Other outlets are ably covering the Obama administration’s numerous domestic scandals (Benghazi, IRS, NSA, etc.), but the unifying theme seems to be government control over every aspect of life, with rapid erosion of personal and religious liberty.

In the geo-political sphere, we can quickly survey what has been repeatedly documented here at this site concerning Obama’s determined support for the Muslim Brotherhood from the very beginning of his first term, through to the Administration’s blatant interference on behalf of the MB prior to the June 30 protests leading to Morsi’s ouster.

The Copts (joined by pro-secular forces) in Egypt have utterly rejected Obama and U.S. Ambassador Patterson due to their support for the Muslim Brotherhood, with an unprecedented grass roots movement now calling for the removal of Patterson.

Even more dramatically, in the July 26 demonstrations in support of the Egyptian Military, protesters called not only for the exit of Obama and the United States, but for a re-alignment with Russia.

July 26 Tahrir Square Protest Sign shows huge image of Putin with “Bye Bye America” caption.

“Obama Out — Putin In” and “Bye-Bye America” are the chants and placards this time around, as Obama’s foreign policy chickens come home to roost (as his firebrand pastor Jeremiah Wright might put it).

In spite of the waves of attacks and murders of Christians by Muslim Brotherhood thugs, since the June 30 demonstrations the Copts seem to hold cautious hope for a renewed secularist dynamic, as the Military holds firm, even as both sides in Egypt reject Obama and the U.S.

In Syria, the unique tapestry of Christian confessions have become completely exasperated by U.S. support of the jihadi rebels, a Syrian Christian delegation pleading in Congressional testimony, “Why is America at war with us?

In spite of their testimony, GOP senators led by John McCain (but vigorously opposed by Rand Paul) have cast their lot with Obama, thinking that supporting Islamic extremists serves the greater good.

Once again, Putin’s name — and his voice — rises above the mediocrity of amoral U.S. leadership. Referring to the viral video of a Syrian rebel leader cutting out and eating the heart of a slain enemy combatant, Putin slammed Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron, for desiring to support terrorists, stating, “One should hardly back those who kill enemies and eat their organs.”

In the Syria debate, Putin has seized upon something Obama has either forgotten or simply isn’t wired to comprehend: the moral responsibility of the Great Powers to protect those least able to defend themselves. Pumping arms to the Syrian jihadis benefits no one, and only puts defenseless Christians in the crosshairs.

Yet as is clear, Obama has picked his horse in the Syria race. Thus, per his 2012 campaign slogan, Obama pushes “forward.” Forward, with what Raymond Ibrahim has identified as a “proxy war on Mideast Christians.”

Such is the geo-political and moral collapse of the United States. Once the “shining city on a hill,” Obama’s America has lost its luster, and has left a vacuum in international human rights leadership. A vacuum which seems about to be filled by a reinvigorated and suddenly immensely relevant Russia.

Read more

Morsi’s Downfall Shifts Regional Alliances

download (11)By Ryan Mauro:

The revolution (not a coup) that toppled Egyptian President Morsi isn’t just a decisive defeat for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt; it has triggered events that may signal a regional realignment. Just a month ago, the Muslim Brotherhood was ascending as it had never before; now it is in a downward spiral.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s reign has managed to align the fractured non-Islamist opposition. A Zogby poll taken from April 4 to May 12 showed that only 29% of Egyptians had confidence in Morsi. This poll was taken weeks before his July 3 overthrow when an estimated 17 million people took to the streets.

The U.S. criticized the military’s intervention, with Senator John McCain (R-AZ) going so far as to recommend the suspension of aid to Egypt. You can judge the wisdom of this recommendation by those that agreed with it:

The Islamist government of Turkey, facing its own internal challenge from non-Islamists, immediately condemned the Egyptian military and took the Muslim Brotherhood’s side. The Islamist government of Tunisia is urging the Muslim Brotherhood to stay in the streets until Morsi is reinstated.

The countries that immediately congratulated the Egyptian people were Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. The Jordanian government embraced its liberal opponents in order to marginalize the Muslim Brotherhood. Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah fears a “Muslim Brotherhood crescent developing in Egypt and Turkey” and says Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan and Morsi are false democrats.

The United Arab Emirates has called for a Gulf coalition against both the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran. The Saudis, though they are Islamists themselves, distrust the Muslim Brotherhood and have been supporting the Brotherhood’s rivals in Syria. These are the countries who took the side of the Egyptian people, not the U.S.

The biggest change in the strategic landscape since Morsi’s ouster is the position of Qatar, a U.S. “ally” that was more allied with the Muslim Brotherhood. Qatari support for the Islamists was so massive that the three above countries (including Saudi Arabia!) complained about it.

Read more at The Clarion Project


Nile of democracy will flood jihadists of Egypt

1002293_10201357138313437_1680318255_nBy Walid Phares:

As soon as the Egyptian military asked President Mohammed Mursi to step down and dismantle his Muslim Brotherhood regime, millions in the streets of Cairo and other Egyptian cities and towns celebrated the end of what they felt was a dangerous fascistic regime. But despite an overwhelming popular support for the ousting of the Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) from power, some U.S. leaders, starting with President Barack Obama and later joined by Republican Senator John McCain, expressed their rejection of the move because they argued it was “directed by the Egyptian military against a democratically elected Government.”

Awkwardly, the United States executive branch, along with some of its supporters in the legislature, sided with the Muslim Brotherhood, known to be hard core Islamists, against a wide coalition of democratic and secular forces which called on the military to help them against what they perceived an oppressive regime. Observers both in the Middle East and in the West have asked how this equation can hold. Why would Obama and McCain end up backing the Ikhwan while the liberals and seculars forces of Egyptian civil society rise against the Brotherhood? The chaos in Washington has several roots but one global fact is clear: U.S. Foreign Policy has lost momentum in the Arab Spring.

Muslim Brotherhood maneuvering

The first waves of the revolution in January 2011 were launched and inspired by secular and reformist youth, as I had projected in my book The Coming Revolution: Struggle for Freedom in the Middle East published in 2010, before the upheavals. The first Facebook page of the “Egyptian Revolution” attracted 85,000 “likes.” Many of these early online supporters hit Tahrir Square and drew up to a million citizens from the middle class, from labor, students, women and minorities. The revolution was the baby of moderate, secular and democratic segments of Egyptian civil society who have never spoken in public or taken action on the streets. Once the U.S. and international community recognized them as peaceful demonstrators, the Muslim Brotherhood rushed in and created their “quarter” inside the Square.

From there on, the Ikhwan maneuvered between the military and the youth, pitting one against the other and taking full advantage of the Obama Administration’s vigorous support. In June 2012, Mohammed Mursi won Egypt’s presidential election. This election was praised as “democratically held” by Washington and Western chanceries. While vastly questioned by the Egyptian opposition, the results were accepted as a democratic fact, internationally. Mursi was “democratically elected” in as much as the opposition was not able to draw any attention from a U.S. influenced Western coalition. The sour reality was more of a Washington endorsement to the Ikhwan, trusting their ability to change towards the better, than a truly popular representation. All observers agreed that half of the Mursi voters were not even members of his party, but were rather simply opposed to the other candidate, a remnant of the Mubarak regime.

Mursi then used the next twelve months to deconstruct every aspect of the democratic achievements of the initial Egyptian revolution. He issued a Presidential “constitutional decree,” modifying the constitutional basic rights of Egyptians with major setbacks for women, minorities and seculars and without consultations with the opposition. On those grounds alone, Mursi has committed a breach in constitutional and human rights of Egyptians. He then attempted to transform the leadership of the Army and security forces into Ikhwan extensions; appointed extremist governors throughout the country, including a member of a terrorist group as a governor of the Luxor district, a target of the group’s terror strikes in 1997. In parallel, the Brotherhood regime allowed Islamist militias to grow across the country and opened a dialogue with al-Qaeda linked groups in Sinai. In foreign policy, Mursi stood against the African campaign against al-Qaeda in Northern Mali; consolidated ties with the ICC-indicted head of Sudan’s regime, General Omar Bashir; hosted terror group Hamas in Cairo, aided the Nahda Party in Tunisia as the latter reduced women’s rights in their country and established cooperation with the Jihadi militias of Libya, one of which was responsible for the Benghazi attack against the U.S. consulate in September 2012. In 2013, Mursi presided over a rally to support the A-Q affiliated al Nusra Front in Syria and backed suicide fatwas issued by his allies.

On the economic level, the Brotherhood regime mismanaged the country’s fledgling finances while at the same time receiving significant funding from the United States, Europe and Qatar. The social disparities already monumental under Mubarak became epic under Mursi.

Read more at Al Arabiya


The ‘Gang of Eight’ and Immigration Reform: ‘Bordering on a National Security Nightmare’


The “Gang of Eight” Can’t See Straight

February 20, 2013, by MICHAEL CUTLER:

In the wake of the recent elections, immigration has risen to the top of the list of newsworthy stories-in part pushed to that position of significance by statements made by key members of Congress and the President that “Pathways to Citizenship” must be provided to what they claim is a population of 11 million illegal aliens.

Some politicians, particularly those from the Republican Party, are being stampeded to act irrationally in a move to appeal to a segment of the American electorate, “Latino Voters.” We will address this foolhardy notion shortly.

While the Democratic Party has been most often seen as the party that was eager to enable and encourage millions of aliens, including illegal aliens, to enter the United States, the reality is that both Democrats and Republicans see significant gains to be achieved by opening America’s borders to aliens from around the world, irrespective of how they enter the United States.

What both parties have ignored is that America’s immigration laws were originally enacted to protect innocent lives and protect the jobs of American and lawful immigrant workers.

A Singular Issue

Immigration is not a single issue but is, rather, a singular issue that affects nearly every threat and challenge confronting America and Americans. The impact is arguably greatest where the issue of national security is concerned.

Prior to World War II, the responsibility to secure America’s borders and enforce and administer immigration laws was the responsibility of the U.S. Department of Labor. Back then it was understood that the key to growing America’s middle class and, in so doing, increase the standard of living for great numbers of American citizens, was to prevent American workers from being subjected to unfair competition from large numbers of foreign workers.

This is how the “American Dream” was born.

The responsibility of enforcing and administering immigration laws was transferred to the Department of Justice during the World War II out of a concern for the potential for saboteurs, spies and subversives to seek, in one way or another, to enter the United States. The concern was that they would try to attack America and its ability to turn out all sorts of war-related goods ranging from guns, aircraft, tanks, ships and other such essential machinery of war.

The primary mission for the five branches of the United States military is to keep America’s enemies as far from her shores as possible. In a manner of speaking, this is tantamount to declaring that their mission is to secure America’s borders externally while the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) is charged with securing America’s borders from within the United States.

When the DHS fails in its mission it undermines the efforts and sacrifices of America’s military men and women to carry out their missions. Yet all too often, this is ignored by the media and our nation’s leaders.

The Gang of Eight

During the past several weeks the White House has put together a “working group” of four Democrat and four Republican senators. These eight senators have come out in favor of enacting legislation that would grant lawful status and a pathway to citizenship for the officially estimated population of 11 million illegal aliens. In reality, it is likely that should such a legislative catastrophe be foisted on the United States, it would result in the legalization of more than 30 million aliens, many of whose true identities (even their countries of citizenship), their backgrounds and their intentions would be unknown and unknowable.

These senators are:

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.

Sen. John McCain, R- Ariz.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC

Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-NY

Sen. Robert Menendez, D-NJ

Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo.

Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill.

They are referred to as the “Gang of Eight.” Since Democrats expect newly naturalized citizens to support their interests and vote for their candidates, it is not surprising that they would seek to enact “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” that would provide an estimated population of 11 million illegal aliens with lawful status and a pathway to United States citizenship.

These politicians are often unwilling to distinguish lawful immigrants from illegal aliens. They are not really pro-immigrant but pro-illegal alien!

To provide clarity, the difference between an immigrant and an illegal alien is comparable to the difference between a houseguest and a burglar.

Legal Vs. Illegal

Those who claim that there is no lawful way for immigrants to legally enter the United States ignore the fact that every year the United States admits more than 1.1 million lawful immigrants. This is a greater number than all of the immigrants admitted into every other country on our planet. These immigrants are provided with Alien Registration Cards that comply with the alien registration requirement of the INA that began with the Alien Registration Act of 1940. These lawful immigrants are immediately placed on the pathway to United States citizenship. The United States also admits more than 150 million non-immigrant visitors every year.

Meanwhile, the Republicans know that many of their deep-pocketed contributors are eager to witness massive numbers of foreign nationals (aliens) entering the United States. Banks are eager to move the earnings of foreign workers from the United States to their home countries, while corporations know that the entry of millions of foreign workers-both legal and illegal, drives down wages. Labor needs to be thought of as a commodity. If the demand for a commodity remains relatively constant but the supply of that commodity increases significantly, the value of that commodity will drop precipitously.

There is, indeed, much money to be made by exploiting foreign workers.

Here is a link to an article I wrote that appears in spring 2012 edition of “The Social Contract” that is entitled: “Immigration: The Modern Day Gold Rush”

During Ronald Reagan’s second term as President, in 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) was enacted. This legislation provided for the legalization of an estimated one-and-a-half million illegal aliens. However, by the time the dust settled, it turned out that between three-and-a-half and four million illegal aliens had been granted lawful status.

In order to make this “one time” amnesty program palatable to those who opposed an amnesty for illegal aliens, IRCA also contained provisions that, for the first time, would penalize employers who intentionally hired illegal aliens with fines and even criminal prosecution. While it may have sounded like a good idea, these “Employer Sanctions” provisions of IRCA were largely unenforced because, at the time, there were only about 2,000 special agents employed by the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service). They were stretched far too thin, and only a relative handful of agents were ever able to conduct employer-sanctions investigations.

Today ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), the agency that was created in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, has about 7,000 special agents. But unlike the INS, ICE enforces a far broader spectrum of law including customs laws. Many of the managers of ICE came from Legacy Customs. These bosses have little experience in enforcing immigration laws and, all too often, even less interest in the immigration laws. Even when managers at ICE are willing and motivated to enforce the immigration laws, they find that they lack the resources and, even more importantly, the backing of the administration to enforce the immigration laws.

America has 50 “Border States”

Earlier I mentioned the way that both America’s military services and DHS are charged with securing America’s borders. It is vital that the true nature of our borders be understood.

Many politicians have come to refer to California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas as being “America’s four border states.” Incredibly, the Gang of Eight have decided that none other than Janet Napolitano, the Secretary of DHS, should be given the authority to decide when America’s borders are secure so that the unknown millions of illegal aliens present in the United States can be processed for lawful status and a pathway to United States citizenship. Does anyone expect her to say that she has not done a good job of securing America’s borders? Is this the only issue that should be considered?

Read more: Family Security Matters

20080110_cutlerMichael W. Cutler, is a retired INS Senior Special Agent. His career with the INS spanned some 30 years. He has provided expert witness testimony at more than a dozen Congressional hearings, he provided testimony to the 9/11 Commission and provides expert testimony at state legislative hearings across the country and in trials where immigration is at issue.

Mr. Cutler has been named Senior Immigration Editor at AND Magazine. His commentaries and weekly video programs that focus on border security and immigration issues especially where they impact national security, community safety, the economy and a host of other issues can be found at:

Obama Doctrine: America Allies with Muslim Brotherhood to Promote Middle East ‘Stability’



By Barry Rubin:

Here is what I wrote in October 2010, when the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood — Muhammad al-Badi — had just given a sermon calling for the overthrow of Egypt’s government (which happened four months later) and a jihad against the United States, a country he considered weak, foolish, and in retreat from the Middle East:

[Al-Badi’s sermon is] one of those obscure Middle East events of the utmost significance that is ignored by the Western mass media, especially because they happen in Arabic, not English; by Western governments, because they don’t fit their policies; and by experts, because they don’t mesh with their preconceptions.

Two and a half years ago, who would ever have thought that the United States would enter an alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood? There were hints in President Barack Obama’s Cairo speech, yet now it is clear that this is the new basis for regional security sought by the Obama administration.

For all practical purposes the closest allies to the United States are no longer Israel, Saudi Arabia, and a moderate Egypt, but an Islamist Egypt, an Islamist regime in Turkey, and the Syrian rebels led by the Brotherhood.

And literally every mainstream media outlet, every expert who speaks in public, every Democrat, and the majority of Republican politicians still don’t realize that this is true.

American history has witnessed the Truman Doctrine (help countries fight Communist takeover), the Nixon Doctrine (get local middle-sized powers to take part of the burden of the Cold War from the United States), the Carter Doctrine (defend Gulf Arab states from Iranian aggression), and the Reagan Doctrine (go on the offensive against Soviet expansionism).

Now, we have the Obama Doctrine: ally with the Muslim Brotherhood to transform the Middle East.

Is this an improvement on a strategy based on alliances with pro-Western dictators? We are still working with dictators, but now they are also anti-American and even more oppressive than their predecessors. The old dictators, as horrible as they were, were content with the status quo (except for Iraq, where the overthrow came without a new extremist regime taking power), whereas the Islamist dictators want the fundamental transformation of their societies. The old dictators were resigned to the regional situation; the Islamist ones want a wave of new revolutions, terrorism, wars against Israel.

And sooner or later they will strike out against America, just as they give their Salafist allies free rein to do so.

The occasion for declaring that an alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood and similar groups is the new Obama Doctrine is, of course, the decision to supply arms to the Syrian rebels. As recently as April 28 – a mere six weeks ago! — the New York Times was talking of an imminent rebel victory. Now, panic has set in regarding a total rebel collapse.  This has prompted a rush to give weapons to the rebels even as they seem to have stopped the government advance without additional American weapons. In some parts of the country the rebels are the ones advancing.

The weapons will be given to the Supreme Military Council, which runs the Free Syrian Army (FSA). But while the FSA is nominally led by defected military officers, most of its soldiers hold views closely aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood.

The fig leaf will be that these guns are being given to “moderates” — like the people Senator John McCain met with. The truth is that  they will be given to people whose politics encompass hatred for Jews, Christians, and the West generally, and who are ready to engage in what, in American politics, has come to be known as homophobia and a War on Women.

If the rebels were to win, this would mean imposing a Muslim Brotherhood government on Syria. The Syrian political opposition organization the United States recognizes and has financially supported is overwhelmingly run by the Brotherhood, and it refuses to admit real moderates and Kurds on a serious level.

Note that this is the second Muslim Brotherhood entity the U.S. government has provided with weapons. The first was the Egyptian government, which — despite its questionable human rights record–  the Obama administration has no objection to helping. The shipment of weapons was not even postponed as a gesture.

Read more at PJ Media


Frank Gaffney interviews John Rosenthal, author of the Jihadist Plot


769446463JOHN ROSENTHAL, author of the book “The Jihadist Plot: The Untold Story of Al-Qaeda and the Libyan Rebellion” joins Frank for a special one-hour show to celebrate the release of his newest book.  During the hour, John discusses many of the topics covered in his latest publication, including the true background story of the Libyan Rebellion and how Al-Qadea played a part in the uprisings. He also discusses the implications that have been and still are emerging from the Obama Administration’s and other officials within the government’s refusal to recognize the true threat Jihad poses.

Listen to the interview here —-> Secure Freedom Radio


Clinton’s Republican Guard

hillary4By Andrew McCarthy:

With each new revelation, what has always been obvious becomes more pronounced: the State Department’s self-proclaimed final word on the Benghazi Massacre, the risibly named “Accountability Review Board” investigation, is a fraud. Yet, like the rest of the Obama administration’s obstructive wagon-circling, the ARB’s report continues serving its intended purpose: to thwart efforts to hold administration officials accountable. Even on Fox News, which has been admirably dogged covering a scandal the Obamedia has done its best to bury, the refrain is heard: How could the ARB report be a whitewash when its investigation was run by such Washington eminences as Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Admiral Michael Mullen?

The answer is simple: Pickering and Mullen were not chosen by accident; then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tapped them because, to insulate herself, she needed a pair of Beltway careerists held in high esteem by the progressive-friendly Republican establishment. As night follows day, Pickering and Mullen produced exactly the shoddy, politicized report that was expected of them – bleaching away the malfeasance of Clinton, a central figure in the scandal whom they did not even bother to interview.

Mrs. Clinton is a master of this game.

Recall that her top advisor at State was Huma Abedin, a longtime associate of Omar Abdullah Naseef, a rabid Islamic supremacist and financial backer of al Qaeda. For a dozen years, during most of which she was also working for Mrs. Clinton, Abedin worked at Naseef’s Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs – a building block of the joint Saudi regime and Muslim Brotherhood project to promote sharia enclaves in the West, encouraging Muslims to resist assimilation.

Abedin had begun working for then-First Lady Hillary Clinton in the nineties, while a member of the executive board of the Muslim Students Association (MSA) at George Washington University. Founded in the early sixties, the MSA is first building block of the Brotherhood’s American infrastructure, and its GWU chapter has quite a history: In 2001, its “spriritual guide” was Anwar al-Awlaki, the al-Qaeda operative who was then ministering to some of the eventual 9/11 suicide-hijackers. As Patrick Poole hasdemonstrated, it was in the MSA that Awlaki first cut his Islamic supremacist teeth – as have a number of prominent Islamists, including (to name just two) Mohamed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood stalwart turned Egyptian president, and Abdurrahman Alamoudi, a now convicted al Qaeda financier who was a favorite “moderate” Muslim leader of the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.

Abedin continued at Naseef’s journal until moving to the State Department with Secretary Clinton in 2009. Naseef, a wealthy, well-connected Saudi, was Secretary General of the Muslim World League, perhaps the most significant Saudi-Brotherhood collaboration in the world. In addition to founding the journal, Naseef  also started the Rabita Trust, a formally designated international terrorist organization. His partner in that venture was Wael Jalaidan, a founding member of al Qaeda who –whaddya know! – ran the MSA chapter in Arizona. The Rabita Trust that was an important funding source for Osama bin Laden. Ms. Abedin’s close tie to Naseef stems from the fact that he is the patron of her parents – Muslim Brotherhood operatives both. Abedin’s mother, Dr. Saleha Mahmood Abedin, is a close associate not only of Naseef but of top Muslim Brotherhood sharia jurist, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi. In fact, Dr. Abedeen runs an organization, the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child, that is part of Qaradawi’s Union of Good. Formally designated as an international terrorist organization, the Union of Good is a major supporter of Hamas.

Five conservative Republican members of the House had the gumption to ask why a person with Ms. Abedin’s alarming connections to prominent Islamic supremacists would be given a high-echelon State Department job, performance of which requires a security clearance granting access to top-secret intelligence. Based on Abedin and other officials with disturbing Islamist ties, the five members asked for inspector-general investigations into Muslim Brotherhood penetration of our government.

In response, Secretary Clinton deftly called out the Washington establishment’s Republican guard. Senator John McCain, House Speaker John Boehner, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, and other top GOP figures obliged, dutifully lambasting the House conservatives. Nothing to see here – just “a few unspecified and unsubstantiated associations,” twaddled McCain. Boehner, who conceded that he did “not know Huma” and had not read the House conservatives’ letters, nevertheless assured Americans that Abedin had a “sterling character” and that the accusations  “were pretty dangerous.”

Mind you, while all this was happening, Obama administration policy, led by the State Department, was swinging dramatically in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood throughout the Middle East. Obama was even intervening in Libya on behalf of the Brotherhood and al Qaeda elements in Benghazi, toppling a theretofore American-supported regime that had been providing us with critical intelligence against anti-American Islamists. Yet, Secretary Clinton succeeded in burying the story. Thanks to the GOP greybeards, the media meme became purported conservative Islamophobia. The bullet was dodged as the manifest influence of Islamic-supremacists on Obama administration policy was ignored.

Unlike that outrage, the public’s interest has been roused by the killings of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, State Department IT specialist Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Ty Woods and Glen Doherty on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, in virulently anti-American Benghazi – at a U.S. State Department compound of unexplained purpose which, under Clinton’s leadership, stood recklessly unprotected.

Read more at PJ Media


See also:

U.S., Allies Creating Ascendency of Islamist Radicals in Syria

SyriaFreeArmyFightersBigThe Clarion Project:

The U.S. and its allies have directly created the problem of Islamist radicals running the insurgency in Syria by providing support to them, all the while saying that they were simply supporting a domestic democratic uprising that reluctantly turned violent only after the regime turned to force.

In its report, the New York Times summed up the situation in Syria by saying, “Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.”

The report went on to explain that most of the so-called rebels, or freedom fighters, seeking to overthrow the brutal but secular Assad regime are all radical Islamists. These are the same rebels to whom the US is giving hundreds of millions of dollars in nonmilitary aid.

Senator John McCain said that the problem caused by U.S. interventionism on behalf of the Islamist insurgents in Syria is all the fault of the non-interventionists. “Everything that the non-interventionists said would happen in Syria if we intervened has happened. The jihadists are on the ascendency, there are chemical weapons being used and the massacres continue,” he said.

The lead group, al-Nusra Front, is considered a terrorist group by the U.S. and is directly affiliated with al-Qaeda, to whose leaders it has pledged loyalty. The rest are radical Islamists of various stripes who have pushed aside secular fighting forces. They have already seized the government’s oil fields. They are beginning to repress wary secular activists with Islamic courts. If they obtain control of the chemical weapons compound, there is no telling what horrors they could visit upon the Syrian people and beyond.

Another prominent group, Ahrar al-Sham, shares much of Al Nusra’s extremist ideology but is made up mostly of Syrians.

The two groups are most active in the north and east and are widely respected by other rebels for their fighting abilities and their ample arsenal, much of it given by sympathetic donors from the Gulf states.

Read more at The Clarion Project


Obama Wants To Disarm Americans But Arm Terrorists

imagesCAOERYUZBy Theodore Shoebat

Obama wants to decree a ban on all assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons, which would apply to rifles and pistols.  On this ban, Obama stated clearly:



I’m going to be putting forward a package and I’m going to be putting my full weight behind it… I’m going to be making an argument to the American people about why this is important and why we have to do everything we can to make sure that something like what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary does not happen again.

Yet, the Obama administration has been involved in providing weapons to rebels who have committed many atrocities throughout Syria. Why must Americans be disarmed and jihadists be given weapons to? Americans are simply observing a right, while the Islamists want guns to force Syria into becoming a Sharia governed state.

Leon Panetta, who is now retiring, and General Martin Dempsey, the principle military adviser of Obama, have both revealed that they supported a plan last year composed by Hillary Clinton and General Petraeus that would provide weapons to the Syrian rebels, who are all fighting for a jihadist cause.

John Mccain also supported, and still supports, this plan, saying

“I urge the president to heed the advice of his former and current national security leaders and immediately take the necessary steps, along with our friends and allies, that could hasten the end of the conflict in Syria”

Though Obama is said to have turned down this plan, he still has supported the Syrian rebellion in a very covert and elusive manner. The current administration has instead used a middle-man: Saudi Arabia, to receive American weapons and then transfer them to the hands of the jihadists.