DHS Denies Grant to Islamic Radicalization Enabler MPAC

by John Rossomando
IPT News
June 23, 2017

The Department of Homeland Security has ruled that the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) will not receive the $393,800 Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) grant approved by Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson on Jan. 13, days before Johnson left office.

The DHS released its list of grant recipients on Friday. MPAC is not on it. The change came after “DHS utilized its discretion to consider other factors and information when reviewing applicants,” a spokeswoman said in an email to the Investigative Project on Terrorism. “The Department considered whether applicants for CVE awards would partner with law enforcement, had a strong basis of prior experience in countering violent extremism, had a history of prior efforts to implement prevention programs targeting violent extremism, and were viable to continue after the end of the award period. These additional priorities were applied to the existing pool of applicants. Top scoring applications that were consistent with these priorities remained as awardees, while others did not.”

In a statement, MPAC acknowledged that working with law enforcement isn’t a priority: “Our position on this issue has consistently centered on community-led initiatives that improve mental health resources, access to counseling, and a host of other social services without the involvement or spectre of law enforcement.”

Still, it disputed the loss of the grant, saying it would consider “all legal options…”

“The exclusion of groups like MPAC point to a DHS that is ineffective in coordinating with communities and unconstitutional in its treatment of a religious minority,” the statement said. “MPAC will continue challenging the trajectory of the Trump administration’s efforts in this space by advocating for a holistic approach that empowers rather than sidelines communities, focuses on all forms of violent threats, and fosters a climate of trust over fear.”

MPAC pledged to use the money for targeted interventions under its Safe Spaces program for people at risk for radicalization. Created in 2014, Safe Spaces aims to improve relations between Muslim institutions and law enforcement.

MPAC Executive Director Salam Al-Marayati introduced the program as an alternative to law enforcement agencies using informants to infiltrate mosques. The roll out meeting included Johnson, U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Rep. Bill Foster, D-Ill., and other Muslim community groups including the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).

Al-Marayati vehemently objects to anything that involves mosques or informants in terror investigations.

“Counter-terrorism and counter-violence should be defined by us,” he said at 2005 Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) conference in Dallas. “We should define how an effective counter-terrorism policy should be pursued in this country. So, No. 1, we reject any effort, notion, and suggestion that Muslims should start spying on one another. Everywhere I go either somebody tells me that officials have met with them publicly or they tell me that they know who those folks are that are representing law enforcement. So we know they have communicated one way or the other with the Muslim community.

“The question is how do you deal with it in a healthy, open, transparent manner? That is why we are saying have them come in community forums, in open-dialogues, so they come through the front door and you prevent them having to come from the back door,” Al-Marayati said.

Government agencies preferred CVE programs, especially during the Obama administration. But there’s no way to measure whether they work, a Government Accountability Office report issued in April said. The GAO “was not able to determine if the United States is better off today than it was in 2011 as a result” of CVE programs.”

The House Homeland Security Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Management offered similar criticism during a hearing last September. The committee has “no way of gauging whether CVE efforts have been successful – or harmful – or if money is being spent wisely,” said U.S. Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa.

MPAC may have won the grant simply because it is “the most organized group,” said Heritage Foundation counterterrorism scholar Robin Simcox. But that “is going down the wrong path. Often this means giving it to some very, very divisive voices who will play into the Islamist narrative; they will play off grievances. They will encourage a feeling of segregation and otherness, and we are promoting other problems for the future.”

MPAC promotes a narrative that Muslims are victimized by a hostile non-Muslim society, Simcox said. That message helps breed terrorists.

“I think it creates an environment where these radical ideas are in the ether, and it’s no surprise to me that somebody then [would] take that final step into violence,” Simcox said.

Research backs up Simcox’s assertion.

Grievances “framed around victimhood against Western foreign policy and military intervention” are among “a kaleidoscope of factors” in fueling extremism, Swedish jihad researcher Magnus Ranstorp has found.

MPAC’s recent messaging has emphasized threats to Muslim Americans’ freedom and security, including promoting a conspiracy theory that internment camps could be revived for them. In February, MPAC posted an image of Star Trek actor George Takei, on its homepage, with the heading “Stand Up for Muslims in the U.S.” The image linked to a petition in which Takei described his experience during World War II: “When I was just 5, my family was rounded up at gunpoint from our home in Los Angeles into an internment camp. We were prisoners in our own country, held within barbed wire compounds, armed guards pointing guns down on us.”

“A Trump spokesperson recently stated the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II “sets a precedent” for Trump to do the same today,” Takei wrote. [Emphasis original]

But that spokesman, former Navy SEAL Carl Higbie, had no role in the Trump transition and only spoke for himself. No one in the administration has endorsed such a scheme.

But Takei’s statement, which MPAC embraced, claimed that “Trump continues to stand by his plans to establish a Muslim registry and ban immigrants from ‘certain’ Muslim countries from the U.S. It starts with a registry, with restrictions, with irrationally ascribed guilt, and with fear. But we never know where it might lead.”

Takei didn’t start the internment analogy. “Challenging patriotis (sic) of AmMuslims is un-American – what happened to Japanese Americans-loyalty test, confiscating their wealth #CruzHearing,” Al-Marayati wrote a year ago, in a Twitter post he later deleted.

Promoting the internment conspiracy theory destroys the credibility of “soft Islamist” organizations like MPAC that don’t engage in terrorist acts themselves, yet validate the jihadist narratives, Simcox said.

Al-Marayati has long promoted the narrative that the U.S. is waging “war on Islam,” one of the most potent terrorist recruitment tropes.

He called U.S. counterterrorism policies a “war on Islam” in a 2009 interview with Al-Watan Al-Arabi. Al-Marayati also engaged in “war on Islam” rhetoric when he chided U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz a year ago for using the term “radical Islam” during a hearing about the Obama administration’s avoidance of using the phrase “So @SenCruz, do you want to have a war with Islam rather than a war on terrorists?” he wrote in a tweet he later deleted.

MPAC Whitewashes Jihad

Al-Marayati appeared on C-Span in 2014, and balked when asked why Muslims weren’t speaking up against jihadism: “Well I think we’ll call this violent extremism. And one thing we have to be clear about, we should not be countering jihad,” Al-Marayati said. “Jihad to the violent extremists means holy war. But jihad in classical Islam means ‘struggle.’ So let us at least not use religious terminology in fighting groups like ISIS. It just plays into their hands. They want this to be a war on Islam, a war on religion.

“We should be at war on criminal behavior, war against terrorism.”

Al-Marayati again rejected the connection between jihad and violence during a Jan. 25 debate with American Islamic Forum for Democracy founder and President Zuhdi Jasser. Jihad is not holy war, he said, but a struggle against oneself.

“We must allow the Muslims to reclaim their faith and not let Islam be defined by the extremist distortions of Islam,” Al-Marayati said.

Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna disagreed, writing that jihad only had to do with fighting and argued that purely spiritual jihad was spurious. MPAC co-founder Maher Hathout described himself as an al-Banna disciple.

“Many Muslims today mistakenly believe that fighting the enemy is jihad asghar (a lesser jihad) and that fighting one’s ego is jihad akbar (a greater jihad),” al-Banna wrote in his tract On Jihad. “This narration is used by some to lessen the importance of fighting, to discourage any preparation for combat, and to deter any offering of jihad in Allah’s way. This narration is not a saheeh (sound) tradition.”

Jasser sees a dichotomy between Al-Marayati’s public rejection of violent jihad and his group’s embrace of Tunisian Muslim Brotherhood-linked cleric Sheikh Rached Ghannouchi. MPAC hosted Ghannouchi at a 2011 dinner, and Al-Marayati flew to Paris in 2013 to attend a conference with Ghannouchi. The sheikh is a member of the International Muslim Brotherhood’s Guidance Bureau.

Back in 1990, Ghannouchi spoke at a conference in Tehran, Iran where he called for the “destruction of the Jews” and invoked Ayatollah Khamenei’s “call to jihad” against America, “the Great Satan.” Ghannouchi aspired to wage “worldwide jihad,” a 1991 State Department cable said. Ghannouchi still favors violent jihad, 5 endorsing the Palestinian knife jihad against Israelis in 2015.

“The central problem with MPAC … is the schizophrenia with which they deal with American issues versus how they deal with global issues,” Jasser said. “The Islamists assume Americans are not very smart, so they are going to listen to their apologetics about jihad and then not connect it to what happens when the Ghannouchis of the world get into power.”

MPAC leaders have made their own pro-terrorist and anti-Israeli statements.

Al-Marayati didn’t seem to have a problem with Hizballah calling its terror campaign against Israel “jihad” in a November 1999 interview with PBS’s Jim Lehrer.

“If the Lebanese people are resisting Israeli intransigence on Lebanese soil, then that is the right of resistance and they have the right to target Israeli soldiers in this conflict. That is not terrorism. That is a legitimate resistance. That could be called liberation movement, that could be called anything, but it’s not terrorism,” Al-Marayati said.

Similarly, MPAC Public Affairs Consultant Edina Lekovic served as managing editor of Al-Talib, the defunct newspaper of UCLA’s Muslim Student Association, when it published an editorial saying Osama bin Laden was not a terrorist in its July 1999 issue.

“When we hear someone refer to the great Mujahid (someone who struggles in Allah’s cause) Osama bin Laden a ‘terrorist,’ we should defend our brother and refer to him as a freedom fighter; someone who has forsaken wealth and power to fight in Allah’s cause and speak out against oppressors,” the unsigned editorial said.

MPAC Defends Al-Qaida and Hamas Financiers

Another hit against MPAC’s credibility is its history of apologism for terrorist financiers.

Just after 9/11, Al-Marayati painted Muslims as victims after the federal government shut down the Benevolence International Foundation (BIF) on suspicion it provided material support to al-Qaida. Its leader, Enaam Arnaout, had close ties with Osama Bin Laden, court documents show.

He had similar reactions after Treasury Department asset freezes in December 2001 targeted the Holy Land Foundation (HLF), which illegally routed charity money to Hamas, and the Global Relief Foundation, which provided assistance to Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaida.

“Selective justice is injustice – it does not help us in the war on terror and continues to project the image that the U.S. is anti-Islam,” Al-Marayati wrote in July 2002 press release posted on MPAC’s website defending all three charities.

Closing these terror-linked charities could send the message to Muslims abroad that America is intolerant of religious minorities, Al-Marayati said that October in a New York Times op-ed.

When the Treasury Department shut down the Islamic African Relief Agency (IARA) in 2004, saying it “provided direct financial support for” Osama bin Laden, Al-Marayati described it as “a bit disturbing that the announcement of shutting down another charity… [took] place just before the month of Ramadan in the peak of the election season.”

Arnaout pleaded guilty to violating the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and acknowledged that his group hid the fact it used a portion of its donations to fund terrorists overseas.

HLF’s leaders were convicted of providing material support to Hamas in 2008.

MPAC’s magazine, The Minaret, cast these charity closures in an anti-Semitic light in a political cartoon it published in its March 2002 issue. It shows President George W. Bush doing the bidding of Israel and the Anti-Defamation League knocking down a building with a foundation labeled “Islamic Foundations (Holy Land, Global Relief, etc.” The top of the building being knocked down says, “Relief for Muslim Orphans” and “Support for U.S. Muslim Free Speech.”

This was not an isolated incident. A January 2000 Minaret cartoon showed “The West” apologizing for the Holocaust and handing over money to an old woman holding a cane with the label “Jewish holocaust.” At the same time, an Arab wearing a keffiyeh labeled “Palestine” says, “Ahem ‘scuse me” followed by a person with a crutch and bandaged foot labeled “Indian genocide” and a black person emblazoned with “African slavery.”

During the 2006 Israeli war with Hizballah in Lebanon Al-Marayati similarly diminished the Holocaust.

“And as far as the Holocaust is concerned, we’ve come out very clearly saying that the Holocaust is the worst genocide, war crime, in the 20th century. We’re against Holocaust denial, but we’re also against people who exploit that as a way of shoving this kind of war propaganda and dehumanization of the Arab peoples and the Muslim peoples as if they have to pay the price for what Nazi Germany did to the Jews back in the 20th century,” Al-Marayati said in an interview.

“MPAC’s default position is that the government is on a witch hunt against Muslims, and that any identification of organizations or non-profits doing quote end quote humanitarian work must be anti-Muslim if they are identified as a terror group,” Jasser said. “And if they are found to support terror, they say they are not the rule; they are the exception.”

MPAC’s statements and actions suggest that DHS’s decision to rescind Johnson’s decision to award the CVE grant was the right thing to do.

As America’s Arab Muslim Allies Move Against the Muslim Brotherhood, ‘Smart Set’ Doubles Down Support

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, June 23, 2017:

Today Kuwait handed Qatar a list of demands from other Arab countries — many of them American allies — demanding the end of support for terrorist organizations:

One of the cardinal demands is that Qatar stop funding the Muslim Brotherhood, a demand that was made clear when this crisis erupted earlier this month:

Interestingly, in addition to Qatar’s funding of the Muslim Brotherhood efforts to destabilize Arab countries throughout the Middle East, they insured they would not be threatened by dismantling Brotherhood operations in their own country decades ago:

Yet as much of the Arab world moves against the Muslim Brotherhood, including the largest Arab Muslim country in the world (Egypt), the Washington, D.C. think tanks, establishment media, and pro-Brotherhood elements inside the U.S. government are doubling down on their support of the group.

This effort of moving against our Arab allies in support of the Muslim Brotherhood was seen when Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said during a Senate hearing last week that designating the Muslim Brotherhood would be “problematic”:

Immediately, Qatar-funded Al-Jazeera and Middle East Eye — both specifically named in the Arab allies’ demand to Qatar — jumped on Tillerson’s comments:

This is a major reversal from comments he made just a few months ago, including during his Senate confirmation hearing:

This reversal comes just weeks after one of the Muslim Brotherhood’s terrorist wings threatened the U.S. Embassy in Cairo:

This is not the first time that the State Department has undermined Trump’s stated support for the Arab allies’ coalition against Qatar:

Of course, entrenched elements within the U.S. government have been working to undermine any efforts by the Trump administration to take action against the Muslim Brotherhood, such as the CIA leaking to media allies a report making the risible claim that designating the group would lead to more extremism:

But as I reported here at PJ Media at the time, going back to the end of the Bush administration the CIA directly funded the “moderate Muslim Brotherhood” narrative:

The U.S. government support for the Muslim Brotherhood took root immediately during the Obama administration with Obama signing Presidential Security Directive (PSD) 11 in 2011 which ordered U.S. government departments and agencies to back the group in the Middle East and North Africa:

Read more

The Former Anchor Who Says Al-Jazeera Aids Terrorists

Mohamed Fahmy in the defendants’ cage during his trial in Egypt. Photographer: Khaled Desouki/AFP/Getty Images

Bloomberg, by Eli Lake, June 23, 2017:

Mohamed Fahmy is the last person one would expect to make the case against al-Jazeera.

In 2014, the former Cairo bureau chief for the Qatar-funded television network began a 438-day sentence in an Egyptian prison on terrorism charges and practicing unlicensed journalism. His incarceration made al-Jazeera a powerful symbol of resistance to Egypt’s military dictatorship.

Today Fahmy is preparing a lawsuit against his former employers. And while he is still highly critical of the regime that imprisoned him, he also says the Egyptian government is correct when it says al-Jazeera is really a propaganda channel for Islamists and an arm of Qatari foreign policy.

“The more the network coordinates and takes directions from the government, the more it becomes a mouthpiece for Qatari intelligence,” he told me in an interview Thursday. “There are many channels who are biased, but this is past bias. Now al-Jazeera is a voice for terrorists.”

Fahmy’s testimony is particularly important now. Al-Jazeera is at the center of a crisis ripping apart the Arab Gulf states. Earlier this month Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Bahrain imposed a political and diplomatic blockade on Qatar. As part of that blockade, al-Jazeera has been kicked out of those countries.

The treatment of al-Jazeera as an arm of the Qatari state as opposed to a news organization does not sit well with many in the West. This week a New York Times editorial accused Qatar’s foes of “muzzling” a news outlet “that could lead citizens to question their rulers” in the Arab world.

In some ways it’s understandable for English-speaking audiences to take this view. Al-Jazeera’s English-language broadcasts certainly veer politically to the left. At times the channel has sucked up to police states. The channel embarrassed itself with such fluff as a recent sycophantic feature on female traffic cops in North Korea. But al-Jazeera English has also broken some important stories. It worked with Human Rights Watch to uncover documents mapping out the links between Libyan intelligence under Muammar Qaddafi and the British and U.S. governments.

Al-Jazeera’s Arabic broadcasts however have not met these same standards in recent years. To start, the network still airs a weekly talk show from Muslim Brotherhood theologian Yusuf al-Qaradawi. He has used his platform to argue that Islamic law justifies terrorist attacks against Israelis and U.S. soldiers. U.S. military leaders, such as retired Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez, who commanded forces in the initial campaign to stabilize Iraq, have said publicly that al-Jazeera reporters appeared to have advance knowledge of terrorist attacks. Fahmy told me that in his research he has learned that instructions were given to journalists not to refer to al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria, al-Nusra, as a terrorist organization.

He said Qatar’s neighbors were justified in banning al-Jazeera. “Al-Jazeera has breached the true meaning of press freedom that I advocate and respect by sponsoring these voices of terror like Yusuf al Qaradawi,” he said. “If al-Jazeera continues to do that, they are directly responsible for many of these lone wolves, many of these youth that are brain washed.”

Fahmy didn’t always have this opinion of his former employer. He began to change his views while serving time. It started in the “scorpion block” of Egypt’s notorious Tora prison. During his stay, he came to know some of Egypt’s most notorious Islamists.

“When I started meeting and interviewing members of the Muslim Brotherhood and their sympathizers, they specifically told me they had been filming protests and selling it to al-Jazeera and dealing fluidly with the network and production companies in Egypt associated with the network,” he said.

One example of al-Jazeera’s coordination with the Muslim Brotherhood revolves around Muslim Brotherhood sit-ins in the summer of 2013, following the military coup that unseated Mohammed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated president. As part of Fahmy’s case against al-Jazeera, he took testimony from a former security guard for the network and the head of the board of trustees for Egyptian state television. Both testified that members of the Muslim Brotherhood seized the broadcast truck al-Jazeera used to air the sit-ins that summer. In other words, al-Jazeera allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to broadcast its own protests.

That incident happened in the weeks before Fahmy was hired to be the network’s Cairo bureau chief. He says he was unaware of these ties to the Muslim Brotherhood until he began doing his own research and reporting from an Egyptian prison.

When Fahmy learned of these arrangements, he became angry. It undermined his case before the Egyptian courts that he was unaffiliated with any political party or terrorist groups inside Egypt. “To me this is a big deal, this is not acceptable,” he said. “It put me in danger because it’s up to me to convince the judge that I was just doing journalism.”

Ultimately Fahmy was released from prison in 2015. But this was not because al-Jazeera’s lawyers made a good case for him. Rather it was the work of human rights lawyer Amal Clooney, who eventually got him safely out of the country to Canada.

Now Fahmy is turning his attention to al-Jazeera. He is pressing a court in British Columbia to hear his case in January against the network, from whom he is seeking $100 million in damages for breach of contract, misrepresentation and negligence.

Fahmy’s case is one more piece of evidence that the al-Jazeera seen by English-speaking audiences is not the al-Jazeera seen throughout the Muslim world. It’s one more piece of evidence that Qatar’s foreign policy is a double game: It hosts a military base the U.S. uses to fight terror, while funding a media platform for extremists.

Why Trump should endorse allies’ demands upon terror-cozy Qatar

XtockImages | Getty Images

Conservative Review, by Jordan Schachtel, June 23, 2017:

The United States should wholeheartedly support Arab states’ attempts to rein in the renegade state of Qatar, as Gulf leaders attempt to cut down on Doha’s out of control terror promoting and jihadi financing policies.

On Thursday, Middle Eastern countries issued a list of 13 demands that need to be met in order to restore relations with Qatar. They have given Qatar 10 days to comply with the ultimatums. The list of demands aligns so well with American nationalist interests that it wouldn’t come as a shock if American officials had a role in drafting the document.

Among the most “America-first” of the 13 mandates include:

1) Dramatically scale down ties with the Iranian regime and expel members of its Islamic Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) from the country.

Iran has long been accused of sowing discord in the Middle East and fanning the flames of war. The regime in Tehran, which considers the United States “The Great Satan,” directly supports terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and has aided attempts to overthrow governments in Yemen, Bahrain, Kuwait, and elsewhere. The IRGC, which is tasked with exporting Iran’s revolutionary ideology through military force, is heavily involved in the Syrian Civil War, supporting the Assad regime and Russia in committing sectarian war crimes against innocents.

2) Shut down the Turkish military base that is currently under construction in Qatar.

Though a NATO ally, Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Turkey continues to trend towards Islamic authoritarianism. In May, bodyguards for the Turkish strongman viciously attacked American citizens protesting outside of the Turkish ambassador’s home in Washington, D.C. Additionally, Turkey supports and aids the global jihadist Muslim Brotherhood network, and U.S.-designated terrorist organizations like Hamas.

3) Eliminate ties for terrorist organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, and Hamas.

Qatar continues to harbor Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, who has endorsed suicide operations against American soldiers. Additionally, there is overwhelming evidence that high-ranking members of the Qatari regime have aided and abetted Al Qaeda’s branch in Syria. Even as the U.S. has recently arrested Hezbollah agents charged with plotting terrorist attacks on American soil, the Emir in Doha considers Hezbollah a “legitimate resistance” movement. Though Qatar claims to be fighting ISIS, U.S. counterterror officials continue to claim that they’re a chief funding resource for the caliphatist[RH1] group.

6) Shut down Al Jazeera and its affiliates.

Al Jazeera is a state-run media agency in Doha that is masquerading as a free media enterprise. The outfit is currently facing a new lawsuit claiming it collaborated directly with the Muslim Brotherhood during Islamist revolts that resulted in the overthrow of the Egyptian government. In 2013, 22 staff members resigned to protest the network’s bias in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood. The news network’s Arabic channel has had a hand in radicalizing its viewership towards Islamist beliefs. A 2015, an Al Jazeera Arabic poll showed 81 percent of respondents supported the Islamic State terror group. Its short-lived American outlet acted as an Islamic blasphemy police, banning words like “terrorist,” “militant,” “Islamist,” and “jihad” from its reporting. After the 9/11 attacks, Al Jazeera headquarters in Doha was decorated with silhouettes glorifying Osama bin Laden.

Since the Arab states’ blockade against Qatar began, American officials have been all over the place on whether the United States supports or disputes the measures.

President Trump — who gave a speech in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia just prior to the embargo, urging Middle Eastern countries to do more to quash terrorist financing — appears to be supportive of the Arab initiative, labeling Qatar a “funder of terrorism at a very high level.” The president is also considering hosting a “Camp David-style” summit for Arab leaders to explore how to further crack down on Qatar’s terror finance and other terror supporting Middle East entities.

However, the Pentagon under Secretary James Mattis, and the State Department under Rex Tillerson, have acted instead to empower the Qatari monarchy.

The Pentagon recently signed a multi-billion dollar arms deal with Qatar, allowing for the sale of 36 U.S. F-16 fighter jets.

And this week, Tillerson’s State Department commanded Arab allies to rescind demands of Qatar, and immediately end the embargo. The State Department even called into question the overwhelming evidence that Qatar is a financier of international terrorism, and refused to name Qatar as a state-sponsor of terror.

It would be challenging to find a more pro-American document than the list of dictates being offered up by our Middle East allies. The White house has been presented with a historic opportunity to finally quash the rich oil-regime’s support for the world’s worst actors. Squandering that opportunity — when pressure on Qatar is as high as it will ever be — would result in the loss of a much-needed boost to American security interests and global stability.

Jordan Schachtel is the national security correspondent for Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @JordanSchachtel.

BREAKING: Gulf States Give Qatar List of Demands To Restore Diplomatic Relationships – All Demands Target The Muslim Brotherhood…

 The Last Refuge, by Sundance, June 22, 2017:

The latest development, in the ongoing Arab state GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) initiative to stem the destabilizing behavior of Qatar, is a list of demands presented to Qatar. If you have followed the regional issues for the past few years you’ll quickly identify how each of the demands cuts to the core of the destabilizing issues.

Included in the demands:  ♦Shut down al-Jazeera, ♦stop cooperating with Iran and ♦expel Turkish military provocateurs (Erdogan).  The binding thread that connects each of these demands is the effort to stop Qatar from supporting/assisting the Muslim Brotherhood.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Kuwait has given Qatar a list of demands from Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations that includes shutting down Al-Jazeera and cutting diplomatic ties to Iran.

That’s according to a list obtained by The Associated Press from one of the countries involved in the dispute. The document says Qatar has 10 days to comply with all demands.

The list says Qatar must immediately close Turkey’s military base in Qatar and end military cooperation with the NATO member. It also demands an unspecified sum of compensation from Qatar.

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain cut ties to Qatar this month over accusations the Persian Gulf country funds terrorism. The U.S. has been urging them to produce a list of demands. Kuwait is helping mediate. (link)

Additionally, a reputable and reliable source for news and information within the region, specifically well-connected to the MB issues, provides the following:

This list of demands could have been personally written by Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi because it is exactly what he needed to do when he expelled the Muslim Brotherhood from Egypt and restored stability in the aftermath of Mohammed Morsi’s chaos.

U.S. President Donald Trump welcomes Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi at the White House in Washington, U.S., April 3, 2017. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

The New ‘Uncle Toms’: Islamists and Leftists Target Reformists and Ex-Muslims With Racial Epithet

Breitbart, by Raheem Kassam, June 21, 2017:

Imagine growing up ­being told everything about who you are as a person is wrong. That it doesn’t conform to what is expected of you simply because of how you were born.

When it comes to LGBT issues, the political left is so thoroughly in tune with such predicaments.

But they’re also the primary abusers of another set of people who are surrounded by hatred and bigotry just for being them: reformist, or ex-Muslims.

Harriet Beecher Stowe’s novel, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, dealt with the issue for blacks in the United States. That book was published in 1852, and according to African-American culture magazine The Root:

Today nobody wants to be called an Uncle Tom, but 150 years ago, it was a compliment… Uncle Tom is a martyr, not a sell-out. His devotion to his fellow slaves is so unshakable that he sacrifices a chance for freedom and, ultimately, his life to help them.

It’s now 2017 – a “current year” factoid always thrown in our face by progressives – and the forcefulness by which the political left and fundamentalist Muslims utilise the phrases “house Muslim” or “uncle Tom” to shame those who don’t conform is not just abundant, it is growing.

I have a pretty thick skin. I hear these things every day. I feel ashamed, not of who I am, but of my fellow human beings who find it appropriate to race-shame someone, or religion-shame them.

I’m told every day, perhaps even several times a day, that I’m a “coconut”, or I hear sardonic expressions of how “proud my parents must be” of me. It’s fine, I can take it. When it comes from Muslims I put this down to envy. The green-eyed monster and the green, Arab-clad flags co-ordinate well together.

But I recall vividly an incident from my early days in politics.

I was so excited to be trotting around the House of Commons with a Labour Party friend of mine I had met at the Sports and Social bar (more commonly referred to as the Sports and Socialist). We had a few beers, and went for a walk around the Parliamentary estate. I guess I was 23 years old at the time.

In a moment of unguardedness, my new friend turned to me in the hallway and said something to the effect of, “You know, Raheem. You should be one of us”.

Flattered, for a moment, I thought, “Wow this guy’s trying to recruit me because he sees talent”. But he continued, before I could say anything.

“Yeah, you’re brown. Your parents are immigrants. You should be one of us”.

I was stunned. Offended, even. And that’s pretty hard to achieve.

The idea I should vote a certain way, or think in a certain manner, simply because of the colour of my skin or the religion my great, great, grandparents happened to convert to.

He later apologised, of course, realising the error. Perhaps we can blame it on the beer.

But there is undoubtedly an ingrained bigotry on the political left, shored up by Muslim fundamentalists who want to shame people like me into acting a certain way.

I have been accused of being a traitor to my race, but more worryingly, a betrayer of Islam.

I suspect those who accuse me of the latter know precisely what they are doing. They know what the punishment for apostasy is.

When the Iranian Human Rights Commission – an organisation about as oxymoronic in name as the Senate Intelligence Committee – decided to appoint me ‘Islamophobe of the Year’ in 2014, they knew they were putting a target on my head.

By the by, this is the same group the BBC and the UK government fawned to following the attack near Finsbury Park mosque in June 2017.

Never mind, I thought. Instead, I owned it, splashing it across the pages of Breitbart London.

But for people of weaker will; perhaps those who grew up not reading Christopher Hitchens’s Letters to a Young Contrarian, or for those who are reliant on their families for housing, or child support, or even for those who are simply ill-prepared, this assault on identity can be devastating, especially when it is endorsed by leading figures.

London’s Muslim mayor Sadiq Khan told the Iranian state-backed Press TV in 2009: “The point is, you can’t just pick and choose who who you speak to. You can’t just speak to Uncle Toms. You can’t just speak to people who will say what you want them to hear.”

The Muslim Public Affairs Council (UK) even published an article as recently as 2016 endorsing the epithet. It stated:

Calling another Muslim an ‘Uncle Tom’ is not racist, it is a political statement, but to paint it as a racist title is a classic Uncle Tom tactic.

In short, ‘Uncle Tom’ refers to an individual who is slavishly and excessively subservient to authority figures, particularly a black or brown person who behaves in a subservient manner to white people; or any person perceived to be complicit in the oppression of their own group.

Ms. Beecher Stowe is no doubt turning in her grave.

Zain, an ex-Muslim in the United Kingdom who spoke to me anonymously (how could he not?) said:

“I’ve been called a fake, told that I never was a Muslim, that I’m a traitor, I have had a person call me an Uncle Tom. I feel really sad. When my parents came into this country they fought hard to exercise their religion. I feel sad that they then decide I cannot exercise my freedom and leave Islam. That’s what angers me the most. I don’t hate them, but I am angry.

“How dare they try and kill someone who leaves Islam? Three of my friends were almost murdered. One lady left Islam and her husband stabbed her. He went to prison but asked for a transfer to an Iranian jail and the government granted his request. As soon as he got there he was released.

“If we don’t stand up and challenge our community and say this is happening… the outsiders need to know this stuff exists.. they will keep on deluding the outsiders that there’s no issues there”.

Zain has never even met his brother, who his parents had after he left Islam and was shunned.

Read more

Raheem Kassam is the author of the forthcoming book No Go Zones: How Sharia is Spreading in America, and Editor in Chief of Breitbart London. You can sign up for book updates here, and follow Raheem on Twitter and Facebook

UTT Throwback Thursday: No Wider Plot?

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, June 22, 2017:

If a Special Forces soldier was captured in a foreign land with which America was at war, would our enemy consider him a “lone wolf” disconnected from any “wider plot” or larger army?

On March 11, 2004, 10 bombs were detonated on four trains by Islamic jihadis in Madrid, Spain killing 191 people and injuring nearly 2000 others.  In analyzing the attacks, American academic Scott Atran, who investigated numerous Islamic jihadi attacks, said, “We’ve been looking at it closely for years and we’ve been briefed by everybody under the sun and … nothing connects them.”  Apparently, this was an “isolated” event conducted by “self-radicalized lone wolves.”

On November 5, 2009, muslim Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan stood on a table on base at Fort Hood, Texas, shouted “Allah u akbar,” and began shooting anyone he could.  When it was over, 14 were dead and over 40 people were wounded/injured.  Before the FBI even reached Fort Hood they publicly stated this was not an act of terrorism.  The extensive DoD after action report entitled “Protecting the Force” was chaired by VA Secretary Togo West and Admiral Vernon Clark (USN, ret) and made no mention of Islam, jihad, sharia, or anything which Major Hasan said were the reasons he did what he did.  The DoD assessed this was a case of  “workplace violence” with no wider plot connected to anyone else.  Apparently, Hasan was a “lone wolf.”

Soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas treat their fellow soldiers wounded by jihadi Major Nidal Hasan

On June 13, 2013, muslim Omar Mir Seddique Mateen killed 49 people and wounded over 50 others in a nightclub in Orlando, Florida.  As the attack was unfolding, Mateen let officials know he was associating himself with ISIS.  Mateen’s father was involved in Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas organizations in the United States and declared his support for the Taliban.  FBI Special Agent Ron Hopper stated the FBI interviewed Mateen three times beginning in 2013.  An investigation was opened, but was closed after the FBI was unable to tie Mateen to a wider plot. Apparently, Mateen was a “self-radicalized lone wolf.”

On Wednesday June 21, 2017, Canadian-muslim Amor Ftouhi yelled “Allah u akbar” and stabbed a police officer in the neck.  FBI Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Detroit office, David Gelios, said there is “nothing to suggest a wider plot.”

And so it goes.  Nearly 16 years after 9/11 and with all of America’s technology and bloated federal intelligence and law enforcement resources, there is not one ounce of logic nor an understanding of the threat.

In fact, the individuals who perpetrated these acts were not “lone wolves” who “self-radicalized.”  Like the Special Forces soldier mentioned in the opening sentence of this article, these men are a part of a large army, guided by doctrine, supported by nation-states, and dedicated to their focused singular objective.

Our enemy identifies itself as the “Global Islamic Movement” and tells us they are “muslims waging jihad in the cause of Allah to establish an Islamic State under sharia.”  All the jihadi organizations on the planet from ISIS to the Muslim Brotherhood say it.  100% of authoritative Islamic doctrine and the highest authorities in Islam, like Al Azhar University, say it.

Their paths to the objective may differ, but they all have the same objective.

There is a WIDER PLOT.  It is called the Global Islamic Movement.

It is the same Islam the West had to deal with at the Battle of Tours in 732 AD.

It is the same Islam from 1095 when the Crusades were launched in answer to over 450 years of muslim violence and incursion into Western lands.

It is the same Islam defeated at the miraculous Christian victory at the Battle of Lepanto in 1571.

It is the same Islam pushed back at the Gates of Vienna on September 11, 1683.

It is the same Islam America fought in our first war after the Revolution – the war against the muslims of the Barbary (Islamic) States.

Lieutenant Presley O’Bannon at Derna.

American is at war with this adversary again.  All of these muslim jihadis are not “lone wolves” but soldiers for Allah.

They are part of the wider plot called Islam.