Reports On Creation Of Muslim Brotherhood Lobby In U.S. To Prevent Trump Administration From Designating The Movement A Terrorist Organization

MEMRI, by  C. Meital and H. Varulkar, March 16, 2017:

Introduction

Following Donald Trump’s election to the U.S. presidency, the issue of designating the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) a terrorist organization resurfaced. During and after his presidential campaign, Trump’s Middle East advisor Walid Phares repeatedly stated that the new president would act for the passage of a bill doing so. For example, following Trump’s September 2016 meeting with Egyptian President ‘Abd Al-Fatah Al-Sisi on the margins of the UN General Assembly, Phares told the Egyptian daily Al-Watan that Trump had promised Al-Sisi that he would promote a bill that is already before Congress that designates the MB a terrorist organization.[1] After the election, Phares reiterated these remarks to the press.[2]

Ted Cruz’s tweet

It should be mentioned that in November 2015, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) announced that they had introduced a bill designating the MB a terrorist organization.[3] In January 2017, Cruz tweeted that he and Diaz-Balart had reintroduced the bill on this matter: “Proud to introduce Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act w @MarioDB [Mario Diaz-Balart]. It’s time to call the enemy by its name.”[4]

In light of this bill, and in light of statements by Trump administration officials about its intent to promote it, the MB began preparations to confront the bill and prevent its passage. Launching a widespread informational media campaign, including the hiring of U.S. lobbying and legal firms, outreach to the press in the U.S., and dissemination of informational content aimed at improving its image in the West, particularly in the U.S., the MB attempted to convey that it is not a terrorist organization, but rather an ideological movement whose methods of operation are peaceful.

On the other hand, the Egyptian regime has been working to persuade the new U.S. administration that the MB is indeed a terrorist organization, as well as an umbrella organization for other terrorist outfits. In addition it was reported that Egyptian intelligence too had hired an American lobbying firm to improve the image of the Egyptian regime in the U.S.[5]Egyptian parliamentary representatives met in January 2017 with U.S. members of Congress to impress upon them the necessity of designating the MB as terrorist. Another visit by an Egyptian parliamentary delegation was scheduled for January but has apparently been postponed to April. Additionally, the Egyptian daily Al-Yawm Al-Sabi’, which is close to the regime, has in recent weeks been criticizing Western media, particularly The New York Times, for providing a platform for the promotion of MB ideas. The Egyptian press in general expressed criticism of the regime for failing to sufficiently counter the MB’s media campaign.

This report will review MB media efforts to counter U.S. legislative and legal moves to designate it a terrorist organization, efforts by the Egyptian regime and official media to prove that it does indeed engage in terrorism, and claims by Egyptian writers that the regime is not doing enough to combat the MB’s campaign in the West.

MB Works To Create U.S. Lobby

In fact, already in November 2016, immediately after Donald Trump’s victory in the U.S. presidential elections, the movement began preparing to counter U.S. moves to designate it terrorist. The Egyptian Institute for Political and Strategic Studies, which belongs to the MB and operates from Turkey under the directorship of Amr Darrag, who served as minister of planning and international cooperation in the administration of former Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi, published a document by Dr. Badr Shafi’i on November 26 with recommendations for the movement on how to deal with America’s intent to promote a terrorist designation of the MB. The recommendations include: Appointing elements within the movement to supervise these steps and make contact with experts on international relations; contacting politicians, clerics, and countries that could sympathize with the MB in order to improve its image in Congress; establishing a legal-media team and hold ties with members of Congress; hiring a U.S. law firm and public relations teams; and establishing a substantial Islamic lobby in the U.S., while strengthening ties with movements opposing Trump’s policy.[6]

Recommendations published by the Egyptian Institute for Political and Strategic Studies (Eipss-eg.org, November 2016)

In January and March 2017, the institute published two more documents by Shafi’i that also dealt with this issue, in which he reiterated his recommendations.[7]

In addition, in recent months, the Arab press in general, and the Egyptian press in particular, reported on MB efforts to prevent the Trump administration from listing it as a terrorist organization. Thus, for example, MB sources outside of Egypt told the daily Al-Shurouq that the global MB organization was conducting widespread activity to this end. According to these sources, the movement was being assisted by the governments of Turkey, Tunisia, and Morocco, and by the governments of countries where the MB has substantial parliamentary blocs such as Kuwait, Jordan, and Algeria. The sources also disclosed that the movement’s steps, not only in Egypt but in 82 countries around the world, as well as its contacts with members of Congress and senior U.S. writers and civil society organizations, are meant to prevent the decision.[8]

Evidence of these moves could be seen in comments by London-based MB official Mohamed Soudan, who said in late January that MB elements were speaking to American politicians, State Department officials, members of Congress, and academics, in order to explain the nonviolent history of the movement since its establishment in 1928.[9]

In other statements to the media, Soudan said that most of the MB’s contacts in the U.S. were done via a public relations firm, and added: “We will defend our history and the movement’s future with all possible legitimate and legal means.” According to him, the MB will not sit idly by but rather operate on all fronts and conduct meetings with all American parties in order to prevent a U.S. decision designating it a terrorist organization.[10]

On February 5, the Saudi website Elaph reported that the MB had signed a contract with an American lobbying firm, paying it $4.8 million to help it establish ties with Trump administration officials in order to improve its image in U.S. media. According to the report, the contract included organizing meetings with Trump administration officials, submitting documents on Egyptian government mistreatment of the movement and its members, publishing articles in American media, and providing platforms for movement officials in American print and TV media. Elaph added that elements close to the Obama administration had helped the movement sign the contract with this firm, whose officials include figures close to Obama’s election campaign  and to Hillary Clinton. According to Elaph, the firm employs dozens of former White House and State Department staffers who have extensive ties to members of Congress and political and strategic research centers in the U.S.[11]

Furthermore, former MB official Tareq Abu Al-Sa’ad claimed that as part of its efforts to improve its image in the U.S., the movement relies on specific American families who are members of the MB and have close ties to the U.S. administration. He mentioned a family which he said has ties to American officials and research institutes, as well as other MB officials that are expected to contact human rights organizations to help improve its image in Washington.[12]

One example of the MB’s efforts on this front is a New York Times article by Gehad Al-Haddad, a former Egyptian MB spokesman who was arrested in 2013 and is currently incarcerated in Tora Prison in Egypt. Gehad is the son of Essam Al-Haddad, an aide to former Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi.[13] In the February 22 article, titled “I Am a Member of the Muslim Brotherhood, Not a Terrorist,” Al-Haddad rejected claims that the MB was a terrorist organization, stating that its ideology stems from the Islamic interpretation based on social justice, equality, and rule of law. He stressed that despite the Egyptian regime’s hostility, the movement always fought for the weak in society and that it believes in democracy and pluralism, adding that during the Mubarak era, it even worked together with democratic movements to prevent him from bequeathing the presidency to his son Gamal. He added that the MB opposes violence and has always operated peacefully, and that violent movements that are said to have grown out of the MB actually left the movement because it could not accept their violent methods.[14] Elements close to the movement said it had chosen Gehad Al-Haddad to pen the article because he had held close ties with U.S. officials during Morsi’s presidency.[15]

Al-Haddad’s New York Times article (New York Times, February 22, 2017)

Another New York Times article on February 20, by Declan Walsh, argued that a terror listing for the MB, which has millions of followers, could have negative consequences, especially for countries where MB-linked parties are in power or are prominent in Parliament, with serious implications for domestic politics, American diplomacy and the broader fight against Islamist extremism.  It stated further that marginalizing this movement could mean discouraging some of its moderate branches that have won wide praise for their democratic engagement, while empowering jihadist groups. Moreover, the proposed designation would reaffirm Trump’s embrace of Egyptian President Al-Sisi, who has faced severe international criticism for Egypt’s dismal human rights record in recent years and its ruthless persecution of the MB.

It should be mentioned that on February 23, Al-Masri Al-Yawm quoted Mohamed Soudan as saying that the MB had managed to convince Congress to not designate it a terrorist organization. The report quoted Soudan as saying that the global MB organization had managed to hold contacts with administration and Congress officials and had used documents to convince them that the MB was not and would never be involved in terrorist attacks, and that it routinely issues condemnations for attacks that take place in most countries of the world.”[16] However, the following day Soudan denied the statements attributed to him by Al-Masri Al-Yawm, and posted an article from the Egyptian daily Al-Misriyyoun on his Facebook page with the comment: “I know nothing of this statement and these comments, and I don’t know where they (Al-Masri Al-Yawm) got this fiction.”[17]

Al-Sisi Regime Responds To MB Media Campaign

The Egyptian regime does not seem to working as intensively to promote the U.S. Congressional bill to designate the MB terrorist as the MB is to prevent such a designation. In January 2017, Mohamed Al-‘Orabi, former Egyptian foreign minister and current member of the Egyptian parliament’s foreign relations committee, and Ahmed Al-Fadaly, head of the Independent Party Current, attended President Trump’s inauguration, and also met with members of Congress and administration officials. They presented President Trump with a memo demanding quick action to designate the MB as terrorist. Al-‘Orabi said during the visit that the Egyptian parliament would soon launch a widespread campaign to advance this issue.[18]

However, besides this visit, and MP statements about their intentions to act on the matter, no actual measures are reported to have been taken to promote the U.S. Congress’s anti-MB bill.

In mid-January 2017, it was reported that a delegation on behalf of the Egyptian parliament’s Foreign Relations Committee would travel to the U.S. later that month to meet with members of Congress and deliver a report on “the MB’s violent and terrorist acts.” Tarek Radwan, a representative of the committee, said that attempts were being made to arrange a meeting between the delegation and Sen. Cruz and Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart.[19] The visit, however, apparently never took place. On March 6, it was reported that delegation would visit the U.S. in April.[20]

Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry, asked by the daily Al-Watan whether he had discussed the designation of the MB as terrorist during his late February 2017 visit to the U.S., responded: “I did not address this matter, but I told [U.S. officials] that it was important to note that the MB provides the philosophical and religious basis for radical ideology, and that we cannot combat terrorism [solely] by designating [organizations] in different ways, since all terrorist organizations are interconnected. Thus, [for example] even if ISIS is eliminated, new groups will continue to spring up as long as the source of radical ideology exists.” Shoukry added that the U.S. officials had grasped his point, that he was following the efforts of several members of Congress on the issue, and that the issue remains controversial.[21]

Egyptian Daily: New York Times Supports Terrorism, Slandered Egypt

In contrast to Egyptian officials, the daily Al-Yawm Al-Sabi’, which is close to Egyptian authorities and intelligence apparatuses, dealt extensively with the issue of designating the MB as terrorist, publishing a number of articles attacking the organization. It also criticized the U.S. media, particularly The New York Times, stating that it was enabling MB terrorism. On February 23, the day after The Times published Gehad Al-Haddad’s op-ed, Al-Yawm Al-Sabi’ published an article titled “New York Times Supports MB Terrorism, Publishes Article by Gehad Al-Haddad…”[22] On February 24, it published an article titled “Questionable MB Plot to Slander Egypt in Western Media… Islamist [elements]: Organization Spending Millions of Dollars to Spread Its Poison.”[23]

On March 2, Al-Yawm Al-Sabi’ published an article headlined “New Disgrace for New York Times: Paper Refuses to Publish Article Proving MB Terrorism; [Egyptian-American journalist and researcher] Michael Morgan after His Article Was Rejected for Publication…: ‘The Paper Has Become an [MB] Movement Platform and the U.S. Will Pay the Price.”[24]

Another Al-Yawm Al-Sabi’  article, published March 12, stated: “Since the onset of the June 30 [2013] revolution that ousted the MB regime, The New York Times has specialized in improving the MB’s image and slandering Egypt.” It quoted Islamic affairs expert Ahmed ‘Atta as saying that the MB International Organization secretary-general Ibrahim Munir Mustafa had paid global media outlets, chiefly the Times, $50 million to continue its attacks on Donald Trump because of Trump’s anti-MB stance.[25]

Al-Yawm Al-Sabi’ February 24 article attacking the New York Times

Egyptian Journalists To Al-Sisi Regime: Be More Decisive In Countering MB Media Campaign

Several Egyptian writers criticized the regime’s inertia in the face of the MB’s media campaign. On February 22, Al-Ahram columnist Ahmed ‘Abd Al-Tawab wrote that the MB’s media campaign shows that the movement fears being designated a terrorist organization. He wrote that it is “Egypt’s responsibility” in this matter, “due to its decades-long experience with MB crimes, to provide the Trump administration with information and historical and current evidence that will help it combat the movement on the legal, political, and cultural levels, in accordance with the human rights [principles] that the MB endangers…”[26]

Al-Ahram writer Muhammad Salmawi also wrote of the need for Egypt to step up its activity vis-à-vis the U.S. on the MB issue. In an article titled “The Voice of the MB – and Our Silence,” Salmawi wrote of his surprise  at Egypt’s feeble reaction to Gehad Al-Haddad’s New York Times article. The MB, he said, realizes that the way to influence American society is through public relations and lobbying firms, and the Egyptian regime needs to do likewise: “Those who follow the American press at this time cannot help but notice the intense campaign to improve the MB’s image and cleanse them of any blood spilled now or in the past in the name of Islam. This campaign has a specific goal – to stop the Trump administration from designating the movement a terrorist organization, thus fulfilling one of [Trump’s] campaign promises. To this end, the campaign twists facts with reckless abandon, made possible by the absence of an opposing viewpoint that could have corrected the erroneous information and responded to [the MB’s] notorious lies. How much longer will we remain silent in light of a campaign that has raised its voice and spread throughout the American media since the onset of the June 30, 2013 revolution?

“Last week I read the article by the former official MB spokesman [Gehad Al-Haddad], penned from his Egyptian prison cell and published by The New York Times. I was surprised that some of the few [Egyptian writers] who addressed this matter settled for pondering how such a message was smuggled out of prison in Egypt… The problem is not how it was leaked, but how we could not deliver a similar message [in Western media]…

“How easy it is to criticize security measures that allow messages to be smuggled out of Egyptian prisons and given to newspaper offices… in New York. How easy it is to step up measures against all the prisoners [as a result]. But the MB continues to be heard in the American press – while our position cannot be found in the international arena…

“First, we must examine how the other side managed to gain such a noticeable presence in Western media – and such an examination is not difficult. The ongoing publication of pro-MB positions in Western media, and [this media’s]  disregard for the Egyptian popular will, stems not from some global plot against us or global sympathy with the mother movement that birthed all the groups that accuse others of heresy – but mostly from [the MB’s] accurate grasp of how to operate vis-à-vis American social institutions, and of the active role played by large PR firms in society – whether in the press, the media, in Congress, or elsewhere…

“The way to actively operate in the U.S. is by arriving at an understanding with these large institutions – whether during a presidential or congressional campaign, or in the fight to influence decision-making circles by means of the press and media, or by means of members of Congress. Such a campaign is undoubtedly costly, but losing is costlier still…”

Salmawi, who is known for his antisemitic views,[27] added: “The Jewish lobby in the U.S. has already understood the power of the PR institutions and the influence they wield over American society on all levels. Using this and other methods, they control the political decision[-makers] in the U.S. The MB and the other international elements that fund them have [also] understood this. Is it not time for us to understand what our enemies already have?!”[28]

* C. Meital is a research fellow at MEMRI; H. Varulkar is Director of Research at MEMRI.

 

[1] Al-Watan (Egypt), September 20, 2016.

[2] Al-Ahram (Egypt), November 11, 2016.

[3] Cruz.senate.gov, November 4, 2015.

[4] Twitter.com/SenTedCruz, January 10, 2017.

[5] Rassd.com, March 5, 2017.

[6] Eipss-eg.org, November 26, 2016.

[7] Eipss-eg.org, January 28, March 3, 2017.

[8] Al-Shurouq (Egypt), February 8, 2017.

[9] Aa.com.tr, January 31, 2017.

[10] Elaph.com, February 5, 2017; Al-Masri Al-Yawm (Egypt), February 23, 2017.

[11] Elaph.com, February 5, 2017. Elements in Egypt affirmed the reports about the MB’s efforts to form a lobby. Gamal Al-Minshawi, an Islamic affairs researcher and former official in Al-Gama’a Al-Islamiyya, told the daily Al-Yawm Al-Sabi’ that the MB pays millions of dollars to foreign newspapers and news sites for positive coverage. Al-Yawm Al-Sabi’ (Egypt), February 24, 2017.

[12] Al-Yawm Al-Sabi’ (Egypt), February 17, 2017.

[13] Al-Yawm Al-Sabi’ (Egypt), February 24, 2017. It should be mentioned that in 2007-2012 Al-Haddad was director of the Clinton Foundation’s Climate Initiative in Egypt. Washingtontimes.com , September 18, 2013.

[14] New York Times (U.S.), February 22, 2017.

[15] Al-Yawm Al-Sabi’ (Egypt), February 24, 2017. It should be mentioned that after Al-Haddad’s article was published, a website close to the MB reported that Egyptian prison authorities had penalized him by placing him in solitary confinement. Rassd.com, February 27, 2017. MB associates also said that Al-Haddad and other MB prisoners manage to smuggle writings out of prison with the help of their lawyers, but an Egyptian security source said that Al-Haddad did not pen the article himself, and that smuggling such writings out of prison was impossible. Al-Watan (Egypt), February 23, 2017; Al-Yawm Al-Sabi’ (Egypt), February 24, 2017.

[16] Al-Masri Al-Yawm (Egypt), February 23, 2017.

[17] Al-Misriyyoun (Egypt), February 24, 2017; Facebook.com/FreedomJusticeFrMohamedSoudan, February 25, 2017.

[18] Al-Yawm Al-Sabi’ (Egypt), January 20, 2017; Al-Watan (Egypt), January 22, 2017.

[19] Al-Yawm Al-Sabi’ (Egypt), January 12, 2017.

[20] Motamemservice.com, March 6, 2017.

[21] Al-Watan (Egypt), March 10, 2017.            `

[22] Al-Yawm Al-Sabi’ (Egypt), February 23, 2017.

[23] Al-Yawm Al-Sabi’ (Egypt), February 24, 2017.

[24] Al-Yawm Al-Sabi’ (Egypt), March 2, 2017. Michael Morgan is an Egyptian-American researcher at the London Center for Policy Research, who promotes the designation of the MB as a terrorist organization.

[25] Al-Yawm Al-Sabi’ (Egypt), March 12, 2017.

[26] Al-Ahram (Egypt), February 22, 2017.

[27] In an article he published in the French-language Egyptian weekly Al-Ahram Hebdo, titled “Look for the Jews,” Salmawi criticized  the French law criminalizing antisemitism and Holocaust denial, stating that it does not forbid denying crimes against humanity but only crimes against six million Jews who “allegedly” suffered a holocaust during World War II. He also wrote that whoever wants to understand the connection between the Monica Lewinsky affair in the U.S., the trial against “French thinker” Roger Garaudy (who was convicted in 1998 of Holocaust denial) and the barring of Holocaust denier David Irving from several countries needs to “look for the Jews.” Al-Ahram Hebdo, Egypt, February 4-10, 1998.

[28] Al-Ahram (Egypt), March 5, 2017.

Muslim Brotherhood: We’re Spending $5 Million on PR in U.S.

Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups in the U.S. include the Council of American Islamic Relations. Shown here are CAIR's Founder and Executive Director Nihad Awad (R) and National Communications Director and Spokesperson Ibrahim Hooper (L). Awad was present at the 1993 secret meeting of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood Palestine Committee in Philadelphia that was wiretapped by the FBI. Participants of the meeting discussed how to support Hamas and, in the words of U.S. District Court Judge Solis “goals, strategies and American perceptions of the Muslim Brotherhood.” (Photo: © Reuters)

Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups in the U.S. include the Council of American Islamic Relations. Shown here are CAIR’s Founder and Executive Director Nihad Awad (R) and National Communications Director and Spokesperson Ibrahim Hooper (L). Awad was present at the 1993 secret meeting of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood Palestine Committee in Philadelphia that was wiretapped by the FBI. Participants of the meeting discussed how to support Hamas and, in the words of U.S. District Court Judge Solis “goals, strategies and American perceptions of the Muslim Brotherhood.” (Photo: © Reuters)

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, Feb. 28, 2017:

A senior Muslim Brotherhood official in Sudan told an Arab newspaper* that the group’s international leadership has launched a major PR campaign to influence the U.S. media and members of Congress to oppose the designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

The Brotherhood official predicted that the group would not be designated by the Trump Administration and that the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act introduced into Congress would fail.

He claimed that his organization had made contact with governmental officials and members of Congress and convinced them that the Brotherhood is opposed to terrorism, even though the Brotherhood’s Palestinian wing—Hamas—is designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. State Department.

The author of the article reports that, according to sources within the Brotherhood, the group has spent $5 million on the PR campaign, with contracts being signed last month. Individuals close to Hillary Clinton put Brotherhood officials in touch with PR firms.

The effort to influence American media included having articles and essays published to argue against designation of the Brotherhood.

Indeed, a slew of articles defending the Brotherhood were published as it was reported that the Trump Administration was planning to designate the Brotherhood. Most of these argue that the Brotherhood is opposed to terrorism and violence. As I wrote in December 2014, this notion is patently false.

The Brotherhood also thanked the leaders of Turkey and Qatar for defending the organization. Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia have designated the Brotherhood as a terrorist group.

The Egyptian government warned that the Brotherhood has a lobby in the U.S. disguised as civil society organizations. An Egyptian government website cited a study done by a think-tank in Cairo that concluded that the Brotherhood is trying to influence U.S. policy using affiliates in America that “aim to spread the Muslim Brotherhood’s extremist ideologies in the U.S.,” in the words of the website.

A senior UAE official likewise said that the Brotherhood’s American lobby was responsible for political blowback over his country’s previous designation of the Brotherhood and two of its U.S.-based entities, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim American Society (MAS).

The allotment of money for this campaign is an indirect acknowledgement by the Brotherhood that it exists in the U.S., and its activity in the country is important enough to fight for. The claim that the Brotherhood has an American wing will earn you a branding as a bigoted “Islamophobe,” but it isn’t so controversial in the Arab press (even though the Brotherhood insinuates the same thing there).

Foreign influence operations are at the top of the news right now in the U.S., but they center about Russia. Why is it acceptable to say that Russia would try to influence our policy, but it is bigoted to suggest that the Brotherhood—the largest Islamist movement in the world—would do the same?

*This article was first noticed by Eric Trager of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. It was then reviewed by Clarion Project’s Arabic translator.

Huffington Post Claims Key Evidence Against MB “Discredited.” A Federal Court Said Otherwise.

cair-terrorists-uae-ip

One piece of evidence presented by Justice Department prosecutors to the court went uncontested by the defense. There’s plenty more to back it up.

CounterJihad, by Paul Sperry, January 20, 2017:

The Huffington Post is not known for rigorous research and reporting, but its standards hit a new low last week when it tried to discredit an internal Muslim Brotherhood document calling for “a grand jihad” against the U.S. in an attempt to derail proposed legislation designating the group as a terrorist organization.

In a lengthy Jan. 13 article, “Ted Cruz vs. The Muslim Brotherhood Boogeyman,” HuffPo falsely claimed the Brotherhood document — “An Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America” — has been “discredited.” In fact, the memo was entered as prosecutorial evidence in federal court in the largest terrorist-financing case in US history, and the defense did not contest it.

The 18-page document is one of several pieces of evidence underpinning a bill reintroduced last week by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, requiring the State Department to consider designating the Muslim Brotherhood, along with its front groups, as a “foreign terrorist organization.” The “Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act” has several prominent co-sponsors in the Senate, while a companion bill has attracted 71 co-sponsors in the House, including two Democrats.

Several years ago, the U.S. Justice Department submitted the Brotherhood memo as a key piece of evidence — “Exhibit 3-85” — in its successful prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation, a charitable front group established by the Muslim Brotherhood to support Hamas terrorists, and its authenticity has never been in dispute. In fact, even lawyers for the defendants agreed the document was legitimate. .

In that 2008 terrorism case, which ended with guilty verdicts on all 108 counts, the government proved that the US-based Muslim charity was helping the Muslim Brotherhood funnel more than $12 million to Hamas, the Palestinian branch of the Brotherhood. The Holy Land Foundation verdict has survived two court appeals.

The HuffPo article, authored by national reporter Christopher Mathias (christopher.mathias@huffingtonpost.com), studiously avoids mentioning the Holy Land Foundation case while questioning the merits of the memo.

This is an egregious and inexplicable oversight. Using the “Explanatory Memorandum” along with other of the Brotherhood’s own internal records, federal prosecutors further demonstrated that the Egypt-based Brotherhood operates a secret network of front groups inside America that are conspiring to carry out “a grand jihad to eliminate and destroy Western civilization from within.” In addition to the Holy Land Foundation, the memo lists more than two dozen American Muslim groups the Brotherhood uses as cut-outs to infiltrate and “sabotage” the US government with the long-range goal of turning it into an Islamic state.

The Justice Department, in turn, listed these and other US-based Brotherhood front groups as unindicted co-conspirators in what was revealed to be a massive criminal scheme to provide material support to Hamas terrorists. Chief among them are the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT).

While HuffPo would have the public believe these groups are “peaceful,” the government has fingered them as dangerous agents in a subversive plot to Islamize the United States. Introduced in federal court as Exhibit 3-85, the government stated that the “Explanatory Memo” “described the Brotherhood’s strategic goal as a kind of ‘grand jihad’ ” against America.

Damning as it is, the ”memo,” dated May 22, 1991, is just the tip of the iceberg of evidence showing the Brotherhood runs a conspiracy network to take down the US system of government. It was seized by FBI agents along with some 75 boxes of Muslim Brotherhood archival material during a 2004 raid of the Annandale, Va., home of a suspected Hamas terrorist and Muslim Brotherhood figure, Ismail Elbarasse, aka Abdul Hassan, aka Abd el Hassan.

Yet HuffPo claims such hard, government-certified evidence amounts to an “anti-Muslim conspiracy theory.”

It even tried to suggest the “Explanatory Memo” does not carry much authoritative weight because its author “does not appear to have been a significant player in the Muslim Brotherhood.” In fact, the government described the author, Mohamed Akram Adlouni, as a “US-Muslim Brotherhood Shura Council member,” which means he was part of the governing body of the Brotherhood’s secret North American network. The memo, moreover, “was approved by the Shura Council.”

More astounding, HuffPo turned to a group cited in Brotherhood documents as a member organization — the Council on American-Islamic Relations — to help pooh-pooh the government’s assertion that such outwardly moderate Muslim groups in the US are secretly hellbent on committing “civilization jihad” on behalf of the Brotherhood, as if CAIR were a credible and objective source on the subject.

It quoted CAIR denying any links to the Muslim Brotherhood, even though the Justice Department identified CAIR and its founder Omar Ahmad as “individuals/entities who are and/or were members of the US Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee and/or its organizations,” while designating both of them as unindicted co-conspirators” in the Holy Land Foundation case.

Ahmad attended a 1993 meeting at a Philadelphia hotel, secretly recorded by the FBI, “where leaders of the organizations under the Muslim Brotherhood umbrella met to discuss the future of the Brotherhood” and to devise a plan to support and collect money for Hamas, a designated terrorist group, according to federal court documents. Ahmad was joined at the secret meeting by current CAIR executive director Nihad Awad.

CAIR has also been implicated in a separate terrorism case in Virginia, “US v. Sabri Benkahla,” in which the government concluded that the group was founded by the Muslim Brotherhood.

“From its founding by Muslim Brotherhood leaders,” wrote Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon D. Kromberg in the 2007 terrorism case involving CAIR, “CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists.”

Washington-based CAIR is lobbying hard against the proposed Brotherhood ban because it could spell its own doom, along with other Brotherhood front groups.

Still, HuffPo insists Cruz in his bill erroneously “named CAIR and two other groups — ISNA and the North American Islamic Trust — as ‘affiliates’ of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

The article goes on to claim “there’s ‘no evidence’ that American Muslim groups are fronts for the Brotherhood.”

In fact, the evidence is overwhelming, if only the HuffPo’s reporter bothered to look.

For example, “The following are individuals/entities who are and/or were members of the US Muslim Brotherhood: Islamic Society of North America, aka ISNA, [and] North American Islamic Trust, aka NAIT,” according to the Justice Department’s unindicted co-conspirators list.

An internal Brotherhood document, titled “Preliminary vision for preparing future leadership” and entered into evidence as Government Exhibit 3-64, further ties ISNA to the Muslim Brotherhood by listing it as an “apparatus” of the Brotherhood.

“The evidence introduced at trial established that ISNA and NAIT were among those organizations created by the US-Muslim Brotherhood,” argued former US Attorney James T. Jacks in a 2008 court filing. The lead prosecutor in the Holy Land Foundation, Jacks was awarded a special commendation by Attorney General Eric Holder.

As U.S. District Court Judge Jorge Solis ruled in 2009, the “government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA and NAIT with Hamas” and the Muslim Brotherhood. Specifically, Solis cited the “Explanatory Memo” and other documents federal agents recovered from a sub-basement in Brotherhood leader Ismail Elbarasse’s home just outside Washington DC.

The judge added that the government proved “by a preponderance of evidence that a conspiracy existed” between these American Muslim organizations and the Muslim Brotherhood.

The shocking truth is, the largest and most important Islamic groups in America are part of a Brotherhood conspiracy to support jihad and subvert the American system of government, asserts former Pentagon official and retired Army Major Stephen Coughlin, author of “Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad.”

“The Brotherhood’s goal in the United States is jihad,” he said — or more specifically, a “civilization jihad” achieved “through a process of infiltration and subversion” with the ultimate goal of replacing the US Constitution with Shariah law.

The government agrees.

“The Muslim Brotherhood, also known as the Ikhwan Al Muslimin, was founded in Egypt. Its ultimate goal is the creation of a global Islamic State governed by Sharia law,” former prosecutor Jacks asserted in a 2008 court filing.

“Muslim Brotherhood members first migrated to the United States in the 1960s, where they began their grassroots work on campuses through an organization called the Muslim Students Association,” he added, before spinning off ISNA and NAIT. “By the mid-1980s, the US-Muslim Brotherhood had grown exponentially, established numerous front organizations, developed a solid hierarchical structure, and received direction from the International Muslim Brotherhood’s General Guide.”

“Hamas was established in 1987 as an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood,” Jacks continued, further outlining the conspiracy. “In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the US-Muslim Brotherhood was controlled by Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood members,” including CAIR’s founders.

Most law enforcement officials, as well as even some Middle Eastern governments, do not view the Brotherhood as the benign or moderate organization portrayed in the American media.

Over the past few years, a handful of Arab nations have officially designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. Since 9/11, several known US-Muslim Brotherhood leaders — including Sami al-Arian and Abdurahman Alamoudi — have been convicted of terrorist activities.

Combating Political Islam

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

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

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

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

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

Ideological Threat Focus: Islamism, Not Just ISIS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reaping the Whirlwind

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

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

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

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

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

Is the Muslim Brotherhood “Too Big to Fail”?

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

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

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

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

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

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

A New Way Forward

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It Will Get Worse Before It Gets Better

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

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

Trump to Designate Muslim Brotherhood as Terror Org.

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

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

A bill that enjoys bipartisan support is already making its way through Congress. YOU can help speed up that process.

Clarion Project, November 13, 2016:

Donald Trump will work to pass legislation designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, said Walid Phares, a foreign policy advisor for the president-elect.

Speaking to the Egyptian news outlet Youm7, Phares said the legislation, which was already approved by the House Judiciary Committee earlier this year and referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was held up due to the Obama administration’s support of the group.

Clarion Project spearheaded a campaign to educate legislators and move the bill forward over the past year.  The bill currently has bipartisan support.

See below for a list of senators and representatives and their stance on the bill and what you can do to move the bill forward.

In November of 2015, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) introduced the bill, which identifies three Brotherhood entities in the U.S. including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

“We have to stop pretending that the Brotherhood are not responsible for the terrorism they advocate and finance … We have to see it for what it is: a key international organization dedicated to waging violent jihad,” Cruz told the Washington Free Beacon at the time.

You can read Clarion’s thorough rebuttal of the Brotherhood’s purported “non-violence” policy here.

The bill included is an unprecedented opportunity to educate members of Congress about the Muslim Brotherhood‘s involvement in terrorism.  It reviews the Brotherhood’s terrorist history and how it is banned by the governments of Egypt, Russia, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Syria. Egypt released videos showing the Brotherhood’s involvement in terrorism and the Egyptian government’s website warns about the Brotherhood lobby in the United States.

The bill also outlines how the Brotherhood is linked to CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT).

The U.S. designated the Brotherhood’s Palestinian wing—Hamas— in 1997, but the group a whole is allowed to operate in the U.S.

You can tell your representatives to support the legislation in less than one minute by using our online form.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Members Without a Stated Position on S2230

Barbara Boxer (D-CA)

John Barrasso (R-WY)

Ben Cardin (D-MD); Ranking Member

Christopher Coons (D-DE)

Bob Corker (R-TN); Chairman

Jeff Flake (R-AZ)

Cory Gardner (R-CO)

Johnny Isakson (R-GA)

Tim Kaine (D-VA)

Edward Markey (D-WA)

Bob Menendez (D-NJ)

Chris Murphy (D-CT)

Rand Paul (R-KY)

David Perdue (R-GA)

James Risch (R-ID)

Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)

Tom Udall (D-NM)

 

Senators in Support of the Act

Ted Cruz (R-TX)

Original introducer of legislation

Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

Ron Johnson (R-WI)

Foreign Relations Committee member

Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Representatives in Support of HR3892 (Cosponsors and/or Voted Yay)

 

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

 

 

Representatives Opposed to the Act

Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA) Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA)
Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) Rep. John Conyers (D-MI)
Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-WA) Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL)
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY)
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) Rep. Pedro Pierluisi (D-Puerto Rico)

 

Click here to easily contact your representatives with just a few clicks! Please let us know if you receive a position statement.

EXCLUSIVE – Egypt Dispatch: Top General Killed in Joint Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas Assassination Plot

muslim-brotherhood-terrorism-sized-770x415xt-1PJ Media, by Patrick Poole, October 23, 2016:

The killing of a top general responsible for anti-terrorism operations in the restive Sinai province killed outside his home in Cairo yesterday was part of an assassination plot involving Muslim Brotherhood splinter groups and top terror operatives from Hamas in Gaza, Egyptian security sources told PJ Media last night.

The murdered general was responsible for shutting down the smuggling tunnels between Hamas-controlled Gaza and Egypt, and the joint operation is believed to be intended to relieve some pressure from the Egyptian army’s operation that had placed a stranglehold one of Hamas’ main sources of income and slowed the movement of weapons and fighters from Gaza into Sinai fighting against the Egyptian government, including the Islamic State’s group in Sinai.

A statement published after the assassination also invoked the death of a senior Muslim Brotherhood operative killed in a shootout with police earlier this month.

The New York Times reports:

Gunmen suspected of being Islamist militants killed a senior Egyptian Army officer on Saturday in a brazen daylight shooting outside the man’s home in a Cairo suburb.The state media identified the officer as Brig. Gen. Adel Ragai, commander of the army’s Ninth Armored Division.

General Ragai, according to multiple pro-state papers, had previously been deployed to Egypt’s restive Sinai Peninsula, where the military is fighting Islamic State militants.

The military did not issue a statement.

“I heard the gunshots and saw him die before my eyes,” Sumaya Zein el-Abedeen, the general’s wife, told the state media. She said neighbors had told her that they saw three gunmen with assault rifles in a vehicle outside the couple’s home. The men fired on General Ragai and his driver. Both men were taken to a hospital, where they were declared dead.

A group called Liwa al-Thawra, the Revolution Brigade, claimed responsibility on Twitter for the attack. The group’s account was then suspended.

General Ragai was also responsible for an armored division in Sinai:

The Liwa al-Thawra statement claiming responsibility also invoked the killing of Mohamed Kamal, one of the top Muslim Brotherhood leaders leading the group’s more violent factions.

After the killing of Kamal, LIaw al-Thawra issued a statement vowing retribution.

As I reported here at PJ Media on the death of Kamal, he was responsible for the Muslim Brotherhood’s violent factions, including the most recent incarnation of the group’s military wing, Hassm that has been involved in assassinations of Egyptian military officials.

Coincidentally, Hassm released a video yesterday showing fighters engaged in military training:

The possible involvement of Hamas operatives in the assassination operation yesterday may demonstrate an even increased role in terrorism in Egypt, including their ties to the Islamic State group’s activity in Sinai.

The roots of the Muslim Brotherhood’s “special committee” terror units go back to a split within the group’s leadership, with the old guard looking for compromise with the Egyptian state and the youth wing led by Kamal that sought a more violent “creative revolutionary path.”

A series of statements during 2015 endorsed the group’s campaign of violence:

  • A group called the “Revolutionary Punishment Movement” closely tied with the Brotherhood issued a statement in early February warning all foreigners and diplomats to leave the country by February 28, 2015, or possibly be faced with becoming targets in their attacks.

I reported here at PJ Media in June 2015 about the escalation of violence by the Muslim Brotherhood youth cadres during 2015, beginning with the published call for a “long, uncompromising jihad” in January 2015.

This past June, I reported on the arrest of an IED terrorist cell composed of Muslim Brotherhood members operating out of Alexandria that attacked military, police, diplomatic and business targets.

Meanwhile, bills calling for the designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization have stalled in Congress.

In the House, H.R. 3892, the “Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2015,” a bipartisan bill introduced by Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) and currently with 68 cosponsors, passed the House Judiciary Committee in February on a 17-10 vote.

But House Speaker Paul Ryan has not brought the bill up for a full House vote.

The Senate companion bill, S. 2230, introduced by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and currently with 7 cosponsors, including Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, is bottled up in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Foreign Relations chairman Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) has yet to bring the bill up for a committee vote — or even to hold hearings on the matter.

Bill cosponsors have expressed frustration with the Obama administration’s inaction on the Muslim Brotherhood even as terror attacks by the group continue. The group has targeted Egypt’s Coptic Christian community, which I reported on here just a few weeks ago based on my April 2014 survey in Upper Egypt of sectarian attacks by the Muslim Brotherhood.

With Congress in recess until after the November 8 election, the only opportunity for these bills to be considered in either the House or Senate would be in the lame duck session.

Two Senior Leaders of Muslim Brotherhood ‘Terror Wing’ Killed in Egypt

muslim-brotherhood-terrorism-sized-770x415xtPJ Media, by Patrick Poole, Oct. 4, 2016:

Two senior leaders of Egypt’s banned Muslim Brotherhood were reportedly killed in a shootout with government forces, the Ministry of Interior announced late yesterday:

Reuters reports:

Egypt’s Interior Ministry said early on Tuesday that it killed a senior Muslim Brotherhood leader it said was responsible for the group’s “armed wing” and another member of the group in a shootout on Monday.Mohamed Kamal, 61, a member of the group’s top leadership, and Yasser Shehata, another leader, were killed. The ministry said it raided an apartment in Cairo’s Bassateen neighborhood after learning it was used by the leaders as a headquarters.

Both Kamal and Sehata were wanted by Egyptian authorities since the dissolution of Mohamed Morsi’s government in August 2013:

Shehata was sentenced in absentia to 10 years in prison for “assaulting a citizen and forcibly detaining the person in the headquarters of the freedom and Justice party,” the political wing of the origination, the ministry said in its statement.Kamal had been sentenced to life in prison on two counts in absentia, added the statement.

Kamal is one of the most prominent leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood and a member of the Guidance Bureau. He was in charge of the supreme Administrative Committee, known as the youth committee. He resigned from the committee in May 2016, because the committee was opposed by other top leaders in the organization.

It is precisely Kamal’s role in inciting violence through the Muslim Brotherhood’s youth committee that brought him into conflict with other leaders of the group. He was directly responsible for the creation of the youth cadres that continue to wage a widespread terror campaign targeting army, police and other Egyptian government officials.

In June, Mohamed Hamama explained Kamal’s role in establishing the Muslim Brotherhood’s current terror wing:

The roots of dissent grew out of this crisis management committee, with Kamal and [Ali] Bateekh among its members. They were elected by the group’s Shura Council in 2013, following the end of the mandate of the Guidance Bureau, the group’s leadership body. In the committee’s view, Supreme Guide Mohamed Badie still retains his position despite his imprisonment, while the committee takes on the Guidance Bureau’s responsibilities given the absence of most of its leaders.By June 2014, divisions in opinion on major issues, such as the group’s position on violence, began to fester. According to a former Brotherhood leader from the Delta who preferred not to be named, Kamal, Bateekh and others called for a meeting in January 2015 to discuss the revolution’s anniversary. At that meeting, they spoke of violence as an inevitable path. The meeting culminated in the formation of two new committees to adopt a violence-oriented strategy: the Revolutionary Punishment Committee and the Popular Resistance Committee.

The constituencies affiliated with Kamal, Bateekh and other dissenters live in the areas where the greatest violence against the state has been waged in the last two years: Cairo, Alexandria, Qalyubiya, Monufiya and the northern part of Upper Egypt.

Coincidentally, prior to the announcement of Kamal’s death, research Moktar Awad published an assessment of the “Islamist insurgency” in Egypt, noting Kamal’s role in the Muslim Brotherhood’s terror wing, including its most recent incarnation, Hassm, which has assassinated several top officials responsible for local crackdowns on the Muslim Brotherhood:

Immediately after Kamal began leading a faction of the Muslim Brotherhood towards a “creative revolutionary path,” a series of statements during 2015 endorsed the group’s campaign of violence:

  • A group called the “Revolutionary Punishment Movement” closely tied with the Brotherhood issued a statement in early February warning all foreigners and diplomats to leave the country by February 28, 2015 or possibly be faced with becoming targets in their attacks.

I reported here at PJ Media in June 2015 about the escalation of violence by the Muslim Brotherhood youth cadres during 2015, beginning with the published call for a “long, uncompromising jihad” in January 2015.

This past June, I reported on the arrest of an IED terrorist cell composed of Muslim Brotherhood members operating out of Alexandria that attacked military, police, diplomatic and business targets.

Meanwhile, bills calling for the designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization have stalled in Congress.

In the House, H.R. 3892, the “Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2015,” a bipartisan bill introduced by Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) and currently with 68 cosponsors, passed the House Judiciary Committee in February on a 17-10 vote.

But House Speaker Paul Ryan has not brought the bill up for a full House vote.

The Senate companion bill, S. 2230, introduced by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and currently with 7 cosponsors, including Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, is bottled up in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Foreign Relations chairman Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) has yet to bring the bill up for a committee vote — or even to hold hearings on the matter.

Bill cosponsors have expressed frustration with the Obama administration’s inaction on the Muslim Brotherhood even as terror attacks by the group continue. The group has targeted Egypt’s Coptic Christian community, which I reported on here just a few weeks ago based on my April 2014 survey in Upper Egypt of sectarian attacks by the Muslim Brotherhood.

With Congress in recess until after the November 8 election, the only opportunity for these bills to be considered in either the House or Senate would be in the lame duck session.

New Hope for Law to Designate Brotherhood as Terrorists in US

CAIR-Terrorist-Organization-HP_11

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, July 13, 2016:

The Republican leadership in the House has been stalling a vote on the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act, but two developments give new hope for the effort.

First, prominent Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), chairman of Donald Trump’s national security committee, has endorsed the bill. Secondly, there is a move to incorporate the objectives of the bill in a new homeland security bill.

The Clarion Project has been instrumental in educating the public about the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act which, if passed, would require the secretary of state to list the group as a Foreign Terrorist Organization or address the evidence contained within the bill and explain why the Brotherhood does not meet the criteria.

Click here to easily contact your representativs. Please let us know if you receive a position statement. A list of supporters, opponents and those who have not yet taken a stand is at the bottom of this article.

Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, organized a meeting that included Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC), Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) and Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-GA) to discuss strengthening the new Homeland Safety and Security Act (HR 5611) to include the purpose of the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act and even more measures to act against the Brotherhood.

Interestingly, Rep. McCaul, Rep. Meadows and Rep. Perry have not cosponsored the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act, but have apparently been moved to add its objective to the HR5611 bill brought to the House Foreign Relations Committee by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) on July 1.

The proposed additions would also block Homeland Security grants from being awarded to organizations listed as “unindicted co-conspirators” during the trial of the Holy Land Foundation, a Muslim Brotherhood charity in Texas that was shut down for financing the Hamas terrorist organization.

This provision would disqualify the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) from getting taxpayer money for homeland security programs.

The Clarion Project reported in 2014 on government grants being awarded to Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups since the September 11, 2001 attacks. Our review found that all three of the Brotherhood-linked “unindicted co-conspirators” had received taxpayer money. You can read about more incidents of your wallet being used to finance the already-well-funded Islamist groups here, here andhere.

Another proposed addition to the legislation would deport non-citizens on U.S. soil who are shown to be in the Terrorist Screening Database. Yet another addition  would bring together Homeland Security databases on suspected terrorist activity and suspected criminal activity.

Breitbart reported that a key obstacle for the Homeland Safety and Security Act remains, however. It would stop individuals on the No-Fly List from buying firearms, which many conservatives feel is a violation of the Second Amendment. Ironically, CAIR accused supporters of such gun control measures of having anti-Muslim agendas.

The stalling of the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act is disappointing, but the addition of Senator Sessions as a supporter raises the possibility that GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump will give it momentum. The important recommendations made for the Homeland Safety and Security Act also provides a new route for pushing the issue.

The House goes on recess from July 16 until September 5, making it unlikely that major progress will happen for the next two months. The time can be used to contact your representatives by clicking here.

See the chart to see where your representatives stand—or if they have even taken a stand.

Video: Robert Spencer on the Muslim Brotherhood’s persecution of Christians

RS060916bJihad Watch, by Robert Spencer, July 6, 2016:

In this new video, I explain why a prominent Coptic Christian organization supports the designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization.

Missiles for Terrorists, But No Guns for Americans

screen-shot-2013-03-17-at-11.18.33-amObama is the biggest smuggler of guns to terrorists.

Obama, by Daniel Greenfield, June 27, 2016:

You won’t find many of the Democrats who pulled their phony publicity stunt over gun control backing the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act. It was after all their very own administration that chose to sendF-16 fighter jets, not to mention other serious firepower, to the Muslim Brotherhood regime that ruled in Egypt before being overthrown by military intervention and popular protests.

Not only was the Muslim Brotherhood regime linked to Hamas, which was designated as a foreign terrorist group by the State Department, but it had helped ISIS open up a front in the Sinai. Hamas is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. Al Qaeda is currently run by a Brotherhood splinter group. Osama bin Laden had been a member of the Brotherhood. Zarqawi, the founder of the group that eventually became ISIS, was freed as a gesture to the Muslim Brotherhood. If the Muslim Brotherhood were any more involved in Islamic terrorism, it would have copyrighted the term.

But Secretary of State John Kerry had defended the weapons giveaway to the Brotherhood by claiming that, “Not everything lends itself to a simple classification, black or white.” Apparently aiding Islamic terrorists defies simple classification. Not everything is black and white. Sometimes it’s bright red.

While Democrats have harped on gun sales to potential terrorists, their own government was responsible for selling far more lethal weapons to far more dangerous Islamic terrorist groups.

Our weapons have gone to such diverse forces for democracy in Syria as the Islamist militias operating under the moniker of the Free Syrian Army whose leader defended Al Qaeda and the majority of whose commanders wanted to work with Al Qaeda, Jaysh al-Qasas, a former ally of ISIS and Ghuraba al-Sham, which had called for slaughtering Americans “like cattle” and whose former leader had ISIS ties.

The Free Syrian Army had included the Farouq Brigades, which forced non-Muslims to pay Jizya taxes and which became notorious when one of its commanders was filmed eating a heart. The Muslim Brotherhood’s Tawheed Brigade, which was part of the Free Syrian Army, the Syrian Islamic Liberation Front and the Islamic Front, had called for imposing Sharia in an Islamic State alongside Al Qaeda.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s Mujahadeen Army, which included such democratic secular brigades as the Glory of Islam Brigade, the Islamic Light Movement, the Rightly Guided Brigades, the Lions of Islam and the Swords of Islam, and the Islamist Nour al Din al Zinki got TOW missiles.

Despite the feverish enthusiasm of Democrats for running background checks on Americans buying guns, they had no interest in conducting background checks on the Islamic terrorist groups they were sending missiles to.

The biggest smuggler of weapons to terrorists isn’t hiding in a cave somewhere in Pakistan. He isn’t living in exile in a villa in Latin America. Instead he lives in comfortable luxury in the White House.

Obama had secretly authorized Timber Sycamore, the code name that stood for an alliance with the Saudis to smuggle assault rifles and missiles to Syrian Jihadists. He endorsed a Qatari weapons smuggling operation to Libyan Jihadists which the White House later admitted was aiding “Islamic militant groups” who were “more antidemocratic, more hard-line, closer to an extreme version of Islam”. NATO forces around Libya were told to turn a blind eye to the weapons smuggling.

Guns and missiles flowed through Benghazi on orders from Obama. But the impetus had come from Hillary Clinton. The same Hillary Clinton who is so vocal about gun control in America fought to arm Jihadists in Libya. And Hillary also insisted that even more had to be done to arm Syrian Jihadists as well.

Obama, Hillary and other Democrats seem to think that Americans can’t be trusted with guns, but Islamists can. They’re as passionate about arming Islamic terrorists as they are about disarming Americans.

The Democrats blamed the Orlando Islamic terrorist attack by Omar Mateen on homophobia. Meanwhile the administration continues to aid Shiite militias that murder gay men.

Asaib Ahl al-Haq, also known as The League of the Righteous, is backed by Iran, and like its “moderate” backer in Tehran has become notorious for its massacres of gay men. Asaib Ahl al-Haq has beheaded gay men. The death total has been estimated to be higher than in the Pulse nightclub massacre.

Today Asaib Ahl al-Haq is a key player in the campaign against ISIS. Shiite militias are in charge in Iraq and American support for the Shiite effort, like its support for the Sunni effort in Syria, means support for Jihadist groups.

Obama freed the leaders of Asaib Ahl al-Haq, even though aside from its massacres of gay men, Asaib Ahl al-Haq has claimed credit for thousands of attacks on Americans. It had abducted and murdered American soldiers. And it continues to threaten Americans in Iraq today. Yet the United States has acted as its air force and its terrorists and killers allegedly carry our weapons.

Obama’s Iran nuke deal has funded a major arms shopping spree by the Islamic terror state. And yet the Democrats so dedicated to gun control were enthusiastically in favor of a plan which allows Iran to toy with nuclear technology whose destructive capability is so far above that of any gun that the latter might as well not even exist. They also have no problems with Iran’s weapons shopping spree.

Their philosophy continues to be that guns and missiles for terrorists are not a problem. Only Americans buying guns must be stopped even at the cost of our civil rights. And that is the problem in a nutshell.

Orlando was an Islamic terrorist attack. Democrats have put on a great show of caring about the abstract existence of firearms, but none about the threat of Islamic terrorists. Guns do not shoot themselves. Their lack of concern and interest in the motives of Islamic terrorists is the problem.

Obama has dispensed guns to Islamic terrorists without bothering with any background checks. Media accounts repeatedly spew nonsense about how Islamic Jihadists dedicated to establishing systems of Sharia law are really secular and democratic moderates. The same newspapers and news networks that are horrified at the idea of an American being able to purchase an AR-15 see no problems with Islamic terrorists getting their hands on everything from TOW missiles to F-16 jets.

Even Islamic terrorists who were allied with groups officially listed as terrorists still received weapons and support. That is unacceptable. And we may never know the full consequences of that treason.

If the Democrats really want gun control, then let them start by controlling the flood of guns and missiles going to terrorists. Not to mention drug cartels. If they really want gun control, then they can start by ending the sale of weapons to regimes tied to terrorism, including Qatar and Saudi Arabia. If they really want gun control, then they can prevent the recurrence of similar weapons smuggling schemes to Islamist groups by signing on to theMuslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act.

GOP Leaders Stall Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Act

ryan

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, June 23, 2016:

Eighty members of Congress, including two Democrats, now support the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act, with one more congressman and a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee signing up since the last update. There’s only one problem: The Republican leadership is stalling it, even though the House version passed the Judiciary Committee.

The two new cosponsors are Senator David Perdue (R-GA) and Rep. Tom Marino (R-PA). The former is especially significant because he is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee where it is held up. A list of cosponsors and opponents is available at the bottom of this article.

Terrorism expert Patrick Poole writes that the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Bob Corker (R-TN), has not even held hearings on the bill, much less arranged for it to be voted on. Corker is reportedly being vetted as a potential running mate for Donald Trump.

The story is even more discouraging in the House, where support for the bill was proven when it passed the Judiciary Committee. Yet, Speaker Paul Ryan and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy have not given any public indication that he’ll have the House vote on it.

“There really is no good reason why GOP leadership should continue blocking these bills from coming to the floor. Our closest allies, namely Egypt, Israel and Jordan, are taking action against the Muslim Brotherhood. As the Brotherhood rank-and-file in Egypt escalate terror attacks, and Brotherhood militias openly ally with Ansar al-Sharia in Libya and other affiliates across the Middle East become more militant, we should not be giving them aid and refuge while our allies actively fight them,” Poole told Clarion Project.

Four organizations representing persecuted Christians are also pushing for the bill. A prominent Kurdish Muslim activist is also supporting the bill.

You can make a difference in less than one minute. Ask your representative to take a stand by using our easy online form.

Numerous congressional staff members have told us about how much of an impact our readers are having on Capitol Hill—many arehearing you, but the voices must be persistent and louder.

Even if the act does not pass, this is a unique opportunity to find out which members of Congress pay attention to this issue, and where they stand on the Muslim Brotherhood and its U.S.-based affiliates. The legislation outlines the evidence linking the Brotherhood and Hamas to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT).

Read more

Christians Remain A Major Target of Muslim Brotherhood-led Violence

1450890849569_700

The Reverend at the Middle East’s largest evangelical church, said, “[The Brotherhood] are responsible. Either they are in control or they burn Egypt.”

Counter Jihad, by Robert Spencer – @jihadwatchRS, April 19, 2016:

The passage of the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act, is not just an option. It’s a necessity – to bring sanity back to U.S. foreign and domestic policy.

If anyone should know whether or not the Brotherhood is a terrorist organization, it is those who have borne the brunt of its wrath. Thus it was illuminating last week when Coptic Solidarity, a group dedicated to defending the rights of one of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood’s chief terror targets, began an advocacy campaign in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act.

Coptic Solidarity President Alex Shalaby declared: “It is unconscionable that the US still has not taken this action when countries such as Egypt, Syria, Russian, UAE, and Saudi Arabia have all declared the Muslim Brotherhood to be a terrorist organization.”

This delay is solely the responsibility of the powerful friend of the Brotherhood who lives in the White House. Barack Obama made sure that Muslim Brotherhood members were in the audience when he gave his Cairo speech in June 2009, and came out in favor of the uprisings against Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak even when it became clear that the Brotherhood stood to be their chief beneficiary. Protesters against the Brotherhood regime in Egypt as it was driven from power in 2013 accused Obama of supporting terrorism.

The accusation wasn’t made lightly. During the Brotherhood’s one year in power, Egypt’s El Nadeem Center for Rehabilitation of Victims of Violence documented 359 cases of torture by the regime – ten times the number of cases documented annually during the Mubarak regime. One chief Brotherhood target was Egypt’s Christian community: Brotherhood partisans ransacked Christian businesses and abducted Christian children.

Brotherhood members blamed the fall of their regime on the Christians and rampaged against Christians all over Egypt, burning and looting nearly seventy churches and destroying 1,000 Christian businesses and homes. The Rev. Khalil Fawzi of Kasr El Dubarrah Evangelical Church, the Middle East’s largest evangelical church, said: “The Muslim Brotherhood were the ones who called for aggression [against Christians]. They are responsible. Either they are in control or they burn Egypt.”

This violence, however, was just an intensification of the ongoing low-level persecution to which the Brotherhood subjected the Christians. As far back as 2003, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom said that “Coptic Christians face ongoing violence from vigilante Muslim extremists, including members of the Muslim Brotherhood, many of whom act with impunity.”

The Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act itself sets out ample evidence that the Brotherhood richly deserves the terror designation, including February 2011 testimony by then-FBI Director Robert Mueller, who declared that “elements of the Muslim Brotherhood both here and overseas have supported terrorism.”

Richard Clarke, the former National Coordinator for National Security and Counter Terrorism, said in 2003:

The issue of terrorist financing in the United States is a fundamental example of the shared infrastructure levered by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al-Qaeda, all of which enjoy a significant degree of cooperation and coordination within our borders. The common link here is the extremist Muslim Brotherhood—all of these organizations are descendants of the membership and ideology of the Muslim Brothers.

Clarke was right: al-Qaeda founders Abdullah Azzam and Osama bin Laden and its current leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, were all members of or trained by the Muslim Brotherhood.

This support for jihad terror is in line with the Brotherhood’s goal since its founding. Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna’s ambition was to restore the caliphate (which had been abolished in 1924, four years before he founded the Brotherhood), creating a global Islamic superstate instituting Sharia as a universal law. Al-Banna insisted that it was a “duty incumbent on every Muslim to struggle towards the aim of making every people Muslim and the whole world Islamic, so that the banner of Islam can flutter over the earth and the call of the Muezzin can resound in all the corners of the world: Allah is greater [Allahu akbar]!”

That includes the United States. Brotherhood leader Muhammad Mahdi Othman Akef said in 2004: “I have complete faith that Islam will invade Europe and America.” He was referring not to a military invasion, but one driven by propaganda.

On Obama’s watch, that propaganda has spread far and wide, giving the Brotherhood a patina of respectability. One secular Muslim noted in 2015: “Most Americans do not know how vicious and bloody the Muslim Brotherhood is. They really can’t understand.” It’s time they do. The terror designation will enable the next President and Congress to move decisively against the Brotherhood – maybe just in the nick of time.

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is The Complete Infidel’s Guide to ISIS. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.

Also see:

Congressman Blasts Obama Admin For Not Designating Muslim Brotherhood a Terrorist Org

brotherhood.sized-770x415xc

FILE – DECEMBER 25, 2013: The Egyptian interim goverment has declared the Mohammed Morsi led ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ a terrorist organisation. The action was taken in response to the bombing of the police station in Mansoura earlier this week, which the government has stated was the responsibility of the Brotherhood, despite denials from the group itself. CAIRO, EGYPT – DECEMBER 14: Supporters of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi and members of the Muslim Brotherhood chant slogans during a rally on December 14, 2012 in Cairo, Egypt. Opponents and supporters of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi staged final rallies in Cairo ahead of tomorrow’s referendum vote on the country’s draft constitution that was rushed through parliament in an overnight session on November 29. The country’s new draft constitution, passed by a constitutional assembly dominated by Islamists, will go to a referendum vote on December 15. (Photo by Daniel Berehulak/Getty Images)

PJ Media, by Patrick Poole, April 18, 2016:

Congressman Dave Trott (R-MI) blasted to the Obama administration during a hearing last week for not designating the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, noting the group’s role in the targeting of Coptic Christians in Egypt and continuing to incite violence against minorities and U.S. allies.

Rep. Trott also expressed disbelief at the State Department’s excuses for continuing to meet with the group.

Both the House and the Senate are considering bills calling on the administration to designate the Muslim Brotherhood. Last November Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) introduced H.R. 3892, the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2015, that now has bipartisan support. A Senate companion bill, S. 2230, was introduced by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX).

On February 24 the House Judiciary Committee voted 17-10 to pass the bill and move the measure to the full House.

As a cosponsor of the House bill, Rep. Trott slammed the administration last week for their continued reluctance to designate the Muslim Brotherhood and for meeting with representatives from the group last year, posting the video on his Facebook page.

It is worth noting that several U.S. allies in the Middle East have taken action against the group. Including U.A.E., Egypt and Israel.

And last week Jordan closed the group’s headquarters in Amman:

As I noted here at PJ Media last June, the Muslim Brotherhood has stepped up their terror operations in Egypt as the Obama administration continued to court the group.

In January 2015, the State Department received a Muslim Brotherhood delegation just one day before the group published a declaration of jihad against the Egyptian state on their official website.

In that same article I discussed my April 2014 trip to Egypt, where I toured many of the Coptic churches looted and torched by the Muslim Brotherhood in August 2013, including hard-hit areas in Upper Egypt, including Minya, Delga and Assuit.

Egypt32

During the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Reign of Terror” in August 2013, local affiliates openly encouraged the attacks on the Coptic churches, including this justification for violence on the group’s Helwan Facebook page:

FJP-Helwan-attack-on-Copts-screen-shot-2013-08-16-at-4-21-28-am

When I visited the destroyed monastery in Delga, including the 4th and 7th Century churches there, Muslim Brotherhood graffiti could be found inside the burned-out churches and on the belltower. When I asked the head Coptic priest of the Delga monastery how he could be sure it was the Muslim Brotherhood that led the mob who ransacked and set fire to the buildings, he said it was the local Brotherhood leaders who were leading the mob when they entered the monastery and directed the attack.

So having been a witness to the destruction of the Muslim Brotherhood’s three-day terror campaign in August 2013 and the continued terror attacks against the Egyptian police and military, Rep. Trott has a point.

And as Muslim Brotherhood officials, including their spokesmen, incite violence and terrorism:

It will become harder for the Brotherhood’s DC think tank cheerleaders to defend the group’s ongoing terror escalation.

Muslim Brotherhood 101: Why the State Dept Should Ban Them

Muslim Brotherhood supporters. (Photo: © Reuters)

Muslim Brotherhood supporters. (Photo: © Reuters)

Clarion Project launches a new campaign to demand the Muslim Brotherhood be designated a terrorist entity in the United States.

Muslim Brotherhood_NL

Who is the Muslim Brotherhood?

The Muslim Brotherhood (Al-Ihkwan al-Muslimun) is a Sunni, pan-Islamic organization based in Cairo, Egypt whose ultimate aim is the re-establishment of the global Islamic caliphate and the implementation of sharia as state law. Founded in Egypt in 1928 it is the oldest Islamist group in the world and along with Jamaat e-Islami in Pakistan and India, the most influential.

During World War II they backed the Nazis against the British. They were provided with a printing press by the Third Reich to print Arabic copies of Hitler’s book Mein Kampf and the notorious anti-Semitic forgery Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

They see Islam as a holistic system of life that must be implemented at every level. This includes the brutal hudud punishments such as amputations and the death penalty for adultery and blasphemy. However, they are aware that such ideas are unpopular so they seek first to Islamize the society through education. Although the group officially renounced violence in 1971, that seems to have been a practical decision. The group still believes that armed jihad is a legitimate way to achieve its goals when the time is right.

Following that they would implement their policies step-by-step, under their doctrine of gradualism. After the Egyptian revolution the group came to power in an election which attempted to implement this vision. It was deposed after one year because of their tyrannical policies.

They have branches in approximately 80 countries worldwide including the United States.

Is the Muslim Brotherhood Involved in Terrorism?

They have been the leading source of inspiration behind terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda and its offshoot the Islamic State. Founder Hassan al-Banna and ideologue Sayyid Qutb wrote extensively on the importance of armed jihad. Qutb is also credited with the idea of modern political understanding of jahilliya, which holds that any government which does not implement sharia as state law is in a state of un-Islamic ignorance and should be opposed.

Osama bin Laden’s mentor, Abdullah Azzam, and the mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, were both members of the Muslim Brotherhood before they joined al-Qaeda.

The Muslim Brotherhood branch in Gaza, Hamas, is a terrorist organization which glorifies attacks on civilians and seeks to violently eradicate the state of Israel and commit massacres against the Jews living there.

Muslim-Brotherhood-linked entities in America and other countries have raised money for Hamas. The most famous case of this was the Holy Land Foundation Trial in 2007.

What are other governments doing about the Muslim Brotherhood?

The Muslim Brotherhood has been banned in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as a terrorist organization. The UAE ban included U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entities the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim American Society (MAS) as well as Islamic Relief Worldwide, which has sent money to Hamas.

Israel has also banned Islamic Relief Worldwide for funding Hamas.

The UK commissioned a report into the Muslim Brotherhood. While it stopped short of banning it as a terrorist organization, the British government rejected the myth that the Brotherhood is “moderate” along with the patently false notion that it is “non-violent.” The UK will keep the Muslim Brotherhood under review.

Which US Organizations Are Included in This Bill

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR); the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT).

Read our profiles of each group’s extremism by clicking on the links

Click here to send a letter to your congressman and support our campaign.

To learn more about the Muslim Brotherhood see our detailed Special Report: The Muslim Brotherhood

U. Denver’s Nader Hashemi Shills for Muslim Brotherhood’s ‘Muslim Democracy’

nader-hashemi

Frontpage, by Andrew Harrod, April 5, 2016:

“I can’t have a serious conversation with you about the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and violence because” this author’s question “is driven by a certain ideological agenda,” declared University of Denver Middle East studies professor Nader Hashemi.  His dismissal typified the ideological blindness towards the MB of a March 17 presentation by the Islamist-aligned Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID) before about thirty-five at Washington, DC’s National Press Club.

Hashemi concurred with his fellow panelists that enactment of the recently introduced Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act will “pour oil on the raging fires that are consuming” the Middle East.  Despite the act’s extensive catalogue of MB violent support for Islamic supremacy in numerous affiliates across the Middle East, he echoed the panel in rejecting an American terrorist designation for the MB’s founding Egyptian branch.  He contrasted a supposedly moderate MB with extremist groups like the Islamic State in Iraq and (Greater) Syria (ISIS) and warned that when “moderate forms of political Islam are crushed and denied a public voice, radical Islam thrives.”

Citing Rachid Ghannouchi of Tunisia’s MB-affiliated, deceptively moderate-sounding Ennahda party, Hashemi stated that the “only way to defeat ISIS is to offer a better product to the millions of young people in the Muslim world . . . Muslim democracy.”  He drew from the swift fall of Arab dictators in the “Arab Spring” the lesson that “dictatorial rule is fundamentally precarious” and suffers from an “absence of internal political legitimacy.”  The “Arab Spring” validated for him President George W. Bush’s 2003 statement that “stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty,” notwithstanding his costly Iraqi regime change experiment in “Muslim democracy.”

Hashemi concluded that “it is not a coincidence that ISIS emerged and attracted new followers after the crushing of the ‘Arab Spring’” in 2013 in Egypt.  He failed to explain the connection between Middle Eastern dictatorship and the many ISIS foreign fighters from Europe, nor ISIS’s drive to exterminate Christians and other minorities.  Additionally, he ignored that ISIS developed not amidst dictatorial restoration, but rather the bloody Shiite-Sunni sectarian divisions destroying central rule in Iraq and Syria. ISIS has also gained ground in Libya after President Barack Obama engaged in yet another military campaign for democracy during the “Arab Spring” and overthrew Muammar Ghaddafi.

Libya remained central to the discussion that followed when former CSID panelist Esam Omeish from the Libyan American Public Affairs Council, a pro-jihadi, pro-MB lobbying organization, joined the conversation from the audience. This documented supporter of the Palestinian “jihad way” and al-Qaeda-linked Libyan groups asked the panel about “Israeli-centric politics” motivating a MB terrorist designation.  Against all evidence, he asserted that the MB’s “discourse has always been nonviolent” since the organization’s 1928 founding.  “Violence was born only out of circumstance” as the MB reacted to various authoritarian Egyptian regimes, he maintained.

Omeish also rejected the American terrorist designation of the MB-affiliate Hamas as a “very big mistake.”  As evidence, he mentioned Hamas’s Palestinian Authority electoral victories while overlooking Hamas’s 2007seizure of power in the Gaza Strip. Parallel to his analysis of the MB, he argued that Hamas (which is nowaiding ISIS’s Sinai affiliate) “has a violent conflict with a state that is committing state violence” creating “the atmosphere for terrorist activities to happen.”

Hashemi agreed to an “Israeli-centric bias in the debate” over the MB and acquiesced in Omeish’s MB-Hamas apologia, in keeping with Hashemi’s brusqueness towards critical inquiry into the MB.  As with a Daily Callerreporter in a recently reported audience exchange, Hashemi dismissed this author’s post-event question about the MB pursuing Islamic supremacy with both violent and nonviolent tactics according to circumstances.  Hashemi retorted that the “whole question is rooted in a biased analysis of the topic” and that after a “clear break” following Egyptian state repression in the early 1950s, the MB “strategy was nonviolent political change.”

Hashemi claimed that Hamas “engages in its own acts of terrorism, but within a context of a struggle for national liberation.” He dismissed this reporter’s reminder of Hamas’ genocidal charter calling for Islam to destroy Israel by claiming “these are all pro-Israel talking points” amidst an “occupation of an entire people for the last fifty years.” Given “Israel’s attempts to quash the national rights of the Palestinians, if you were living in Gaza you would be sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood, I guarantee you. That’s the rational position,” he sputtered.

Hashemi’s biased presentation evinced no desire to inquire rigorously into the MB’s history and nature, or to entertain critical questions from audience members. He simply displayed hostility to honest research and apologias for pro-jihad, pro-Hamas, and anti-Israel propaganda.  Unfortunately, these vices characterize the Middle East studies establishment’s repeated malfeasance towards the indisputable reality of Islamist dangers.