No Saudi Money for American Mosques

saudi duplicityMEF, by Daniel Pipes, originally at The HillAugust 22, 2016:

Saudi Arabia may be the country in the world most different from the United States, especially where religion is concerned. An important new bill introduced by Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.) aims to take a step toward fixing a monumental imbalance.

Consider those differences: Secularism is a bedrock U.S. principle, enshrined in the Constitution’s First Amendment; in contrast, the Koran and Sunna are the Saudi constitution, enshrined as the Basic Law’s first article.

Anyone can build a religious structure of whatever nature in the United States, so the Saudis fund mosque after mosque. In the kingdom, though, only mosques are allowed; it hosts not a single church – or, for that matter, synagogue, or Hindu, Sikh, Jain, or Baha’i temple. Hints going back nearly a decade that the Saudis will allow a church have not born fruit but seem to serve as delaying tactics.

Pray any way you wish in America, so long as you do not break the law. Non-Muslims who pray with others in Saudi Arabia engage in an illicit activity that could get them busted, as though they had participated in a drug party.

The United States, obviously, has no sacred cities open only to members of a specific faith. KSA has two of them, Mecca and Medina; trespassers who are caught will meet with what the Saudi authorities delicately call “severe punishment.”

With only rare (and probably illegal) exceptions, the U.S. government does not fund religious institutions abroad (and those exceptions tend to be for Islamic institutions). In contrast, the Saudi monarchy has spent globally an estimated US $100 billion to spread its Wahhabi version of Islam. Products of Saudi-funded Wahhabi schools and mosques have often been incited to political violence against non-Muslims.

The Saudis have been arrogantly indiscreet about spending to promote Wahhabism. For example, a 2005 Freedom House report reviewed some of the extremist literature provided to the public by Saudi-funded institutions and concluded that it poses “a grave threat to non-Muslims and to the Muslim community itself.” The monarchy has also given multiple and generous grants to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the most aggressive and effective Islamist organization in the United States.

Freedom House blew the lid off of Saudi funding of extremism in 2005.

Freedom House blew the lid off of Saudi funding of extremism in 2005.

This discrepancy, a version of which exists in every Western country, demands a solution. Some Western governments have taken ad hoc, provisional steps to address it.

• In 2007, the Australian government turned down a Saudi request to send funds to the Islamic Society of South Australia to help build a new mosque. “Obviously we don’t want to see any extremist organisation penetrate into Australia,” explained then-Foreign Minister Alexander Downer. Eight years later, Saudi diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks affirmed the kingdom’s intense interest in influencing Islamic politics in Australia.

• In 2008, the Saudis offered to finance construction of a mosque and Islamic cultural center in Moscow, prompting three Russian Orthodox groups to write an open letter to then-King Abdullah suggesting that his kingdom lift its ban on churches.

• In 2010, Norway’s Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støreturned down Saudi funding for a mosque on the grounds that the Saudi kingdom lacks religious freedom.

• In July, reeling from multiple attacks over 18 months that killed 236 people on French soil, Prime Minister Manuel Valls mused about prohibiting foreign funding of mosques “for a period of time to be determined,” provoking an intense debate.

These one-off responses may satisfy voters but they had almost no impact. That requires something more systematic – legislation.

Brat’s proposed bill, H.R. 5824, the “Religious Freedom International Reciprocity Enhancement Act,” makes it unlawful for “foreign nationals of a country that limits the free exercise of religion in that country to make any expenditure in the United States to promote a religion in the United States, and for other purposes.” Hello, Saudi Arabia!

To “promote a religion” includes funding “religious services, religious education, evangelical outreach, and publication and dissemination of religious literature.” Should funding proceed anyway in defiance of this bill, the U.S. government can seize the monies.

The bill needs more work: it omits mention of religious buildings, offers no criteria for seizure of property, and does not indicate who would do the seizing. But it offers an important beginning. I commend it and urge its urgent consideration and adoption.

Americans cannot abide aggressive unilateral actions by Riyadh (or, for that matter, Tehran and Doha) exploiting their oil bonanza to smother the secularist principles basic to Western life. We must protect ourselves.

Daniel Pipes (DanielPipes.org, @DanielPipes) is president of the Middle East Forum.

Huma Abedin’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood

Greg Nash

Greg Nash

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Huma Abedin’s Successful Influence Operations

huma-1-640x480Paul Sperry reports at the New York Post that a Clinton spokesman denies Huma Abedin played an active role in the editing of the Journal of Minority Muslim Affairs. The Journal is decidedly pro-sharia. The question of Huma’s position on Women’s  rights in view of her past ties is relevant as Hillary Clinton has made it a campaign issue.

Brian Lilley comments on the story at Rebel Media:

And now, in today’s White House press briefing, Fox News’ James Rosen asks about Huma:

What we should also be focusing on is evidence of a successful influence operation on Hillary Clinton as laid out in a 2013 article by Andrew McCarthy titled “The Huma Unmentionables”

Excerpt:

In the late mid to late Nineties, while she was an intern at the Clinton White House and an assistant editor at JMMA, Ms. Abedin was a member of the executive board of the Muslim Students Association (MSA) at George Washington University, heading its “Social Committee.” The MSA, which has a vast network of chapters at universities across North America, is the foundation of the Muslim Brotherhood’s infrastructure in the United States. Obviously, not every Muslim student who joins the MSA graduates to the Brotherhood — many join for the same social and networking reasons that cause college students in general to join campus organizations. But the MSA does have an indoctrination program, which Sam Tadros describes as a lengthy process of study and service that leads to Brotherhood membership — a process “designed to ensure with absolute certainty that there is conformity to the movement’s ideology and a clear adherence to its leadership’s authority.” The MSA gave birth to the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the largest Islamist organization in the U.S. Indeed the MSA and ISNA consider themselves the same organization. Because of its support for Hamas (a designated terrorist organization that is the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch), ISNA was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case, in which several Hamas operatives were convicted of providing the terrorist organization with lavish financing.

As I’ve recounted before, the MSA chapter to which Ms. Abedin belonged at George Washington University

has an intriguing history. In 2001 [to be clear, that is after Ms. Abedin had graduated from GWU], its spiritual guide was . . . Anwar al-Awlaki, the al-Qaeda operative who was then ministering to some of the eventual 9/11 suicide-hijackers. Awlaki himself had led the MSA chapter at Colorado State University in the early nineties. As Patrick Poole has demonstrated, Awlaki is far from the only jihadist to hone his supremacist ideology in the MSA’s friendly confines. In the eighties, Wael Jalaidan ran the MSA at the University of Arizona. He would soon go on to help Osama bin Laden found al-Qaeda; he also partnered with the Abedin family’s patron, Abdullah Omar Naseef, to establish the [aforementioned] Rabita Trust — formally designated as a terrorist organization under U.S. law due to its funding of al-Qaeda.

Ms. Abedin served as one of Secretary of State Clinton’s top staffers and advisers at the State Department. As I’ve previously detailed, during that time, the State Department strongly supported abandoning the federal government’s prior policy against official dealings with the Muslim Brotherhood. State, furthermore, embraced a number of Muslim Brotherhood positions that undermine both American constitutional rights and our alliance with Israel. To name just a few manifestations of this policy sea change:

  • The State Department had an emissary in Egypt who trained operatives of the Brotherhood and other Islamist organizations in democracy procedures.
  • The State Department announced that the Obama administration would be “satisfied” with the election of a Muslim Brotherhood–dominated government in Egypt.
  • Secretary Clinton personally intervened to reverse a Bush-administration ruling that barred Tariq Ramadan, grandson of the Brotherhood’s founder and son of one of its most influential early leaders, from entering the United States.
  • The State Department collaborated with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a bloc of governments heavily influenced by the Brotherhood, in seeking to restrict American free-speech rights in deference to sharia proscriptions against negative criticism of Islam.
  • The State Department excluded Israel, the world’s leading target of terrorism, from its “Global Counterterrorism Forum,” a group that brings the United States together with several Islamist governments, prominently including its co-chair, Turkey — which now finances Hamas and avidly supports the flotillas that seek to break Israel’s blockade of Hamas. At the forum’s kickoff, Secretary Clinton decried various terrorist attacks and groups; but she did not mention Hamas or attacks against Israel — in transparent deference to the Islamist governments, which echo the Brotherhood’s position that Hamas is not a terrorist organization and that attacks against Israel are not terrorism.
  • The State Department and the Obama administration waived congressional restrictions in order to transfer $1.5 billion dollars in aid to Egypt after the Muslim Brotherhood’s victory in the parliamentary elections.
  • The State Department and the Obama administration waived congressional restrictions in order to transfer millions of dollars in aid to the Palestinian territories notwithstanding that Gaza is ruled by the terrorist organization Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch.
  • The State Department and the administration hosted a contingent from Egypt’s newly elected parliament that included not only Muslim Brotherhood members but amember of the Islamic Group (Gamaa al-Islamiyya), which is formally designated as a foreign terrorist organization. The State Department refused to provide Americans with information about the process by which it issued a visa to a member of a designated terrorist organization, about how the members of the Egyptian delegation were selected, or about what security procedures were followed before the delegation was allowed to enter our country.
  • On a trip to Egypt, Secretary Clinton pressured General Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, head of the military junta then governing the country, to surrender power to the parliament dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, and the then–newly elected president, Mohamed Morsi, a top Brotherhood official. She also visited with Morsi; immediately after his victory, Morsi had proclaimed that his top priorities included pressuring the United States to release the Blind Sheikh. Quite apart from the Brotherhood’s self-proclaimed “grand jihad” to destroy the United States . . . the group’s supreme guide, Mohammed Badie, publicly called for jihad against the United States in an October 2010 speech. After it became clear the Brotherhood would win the parliamentary election, Badie said the victory was a stepping stone to “the establishment of a just Islamic caliphate.”

Also see:

Huma Abedin worked at a radical Muslim journal for 10 years

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Do American Schools Teach About Islam? PC Or Nothing

Photo amrufm / Flickr

Photo amrufm / Flickr

The Federalist, by Joy Pullmann, Aug. 16, 2016:

Jenny McKeigue’s youngest child enters seventh grade this fall, and she plans to excuse him from a world history class requirement to recite a Muslim conversion prayer called the shahada. McKeigue spent four years attempting to convince her school board in Olmsted Falls, Ohio, to alter some lessons and replace history textbooks after her oldest son in 2012 showed her a reality TV episode his teacher had played in class.

In “30 Days: Muslims and America,” an imam tells a Christian man attempting to live as a Muslim for 30 days that Muslims and Christians worship the same god. The Christian struggles with that idea but ultimately accepts it.

Independent reviewers McKeigue requested also found errors in the district’s textbooks such as listing eleven biblical commandments and stating Muslims historically “practiced religious tolerance” by requiring Christians and Jews to pay extra taxes—not mentioning the alternative was often death. McKeigue said comparative class time and materials were not devoted to other major world religions such as Judaism and Christianity.

The district recently did buy new textbooks—a newer version of the one McKeigue had objected to, which contains many of the same errors.

Take and Read

Textbook errors are so common that several independent organizations review textbooks full-time. The Florida-based Citizens for National Security has issued the most comprehensive reviews about how textbooks treat Islam, and Chairman William Saxton says he fields about six related inquiries per day.

CFNS reports chronicle sins of omission and commission—such as saying “war broke out” between Palestinians and Israelis although one side was the aggressor, glossing over historical realities such as Muslims holding slaves and proselytizing by the sword, and inaccuracies such as stating Jesus was a Palestinian when Palestine did not exist until more than 100 years after his crucifixion.

One of CFNS’s YouTube videos points out that the high school history textbook used in the Boston bombers’ public school, Cambridge Latin School, makes straightforward religious claims about Islam no textbook would mimic in a description of any other religion: “Muhammad’s teachings, which are the revealed word of God…” An unbiased textbook would say something like “Muslims believe Muhammad’s teachings are the revealed word of God.”

Saxton is a retired U.S. intelligence officer with a Harvard University doctorate who volunteers for CFNS. He won’t say which agencies he’s worked for besides the Department of Defense, but will say he has investigated jihadist propaganda professionally. He began going through all the textbooks he could find after visiting a grandson in California in 2009 and looking up the sections on Middle Eastern history.

“That’s when the light lit,” he said. “I said ‘Whoa, we have a problem.’ This is a cultural jihad. It’s a dangerous form because no one is going to know about this.”

He quotes Shabir Mansuri, the founder of the Muslim-Brotherhood-connected Council on Islamic Education, who said their work reviewing textbooks for major publishers is intended to produce a “bloodless” cultural revolution. Reaction to such statements prompted CIE to change its name to the Institute for Religion and Civic Values, where Mansuri continues to review history textbooks for major publishers, write lesson plans, and give seminars to teachers.

Follow the Money

Taxpayers often fund these activities through government grants and contracts, and IRCV claims a “significant working partnership” with the U.S. State Department. It reviewed the textbook McKeigue objected to in her kids’ schools (Holt 2006).

Former CIE senior researcher Susan Douglass now runs a education outreach program for an influential Georgetown University center endowed in 2005 by a $20 million gift from Saudi prince Alwaleed Bin Talal. Recently declassified documents suggest links between the Saudi Arabian government, al-Qaeda, and the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks.

Talal, one of the world’s richest men, has suggested America’s foreign policy deserved some blame for 9/11 and donated to the terrorist-linked Council for American-Islamic Relations. John Esposito, the founding director of Talal’s Georgetown center, has raised money for CAIR and publicly promoted organizations the U.S. government later designated terrorist organizations.

The center also receives federal Title VI funds for developing K-12 curriculum materials. Like Mansuri, Douglass travels the country giving seminars at museums, school districts, and conferences. Teacher resources she has written read like Muslim apologetics, including claims such as: “Customs such as honor killing are not part of Islam”; “Of the many current misperceptions about Islam, perhaps the most widespread is that women in Islamic law and Muslim society are oppressed and lack rights”; and “Jihad may not be conducted either to force people to convert or to annihilate or subdue people of other faiths.”

Talal also gave $20 million in 2005 to Harvard University for a similar, federally funded center of resources for K-12 teachers. Many U.S. campuses host such centers, whose employees present themselves as experts to textbook publishers, school teachers, and the media, said Winfield Myers, the director of academic affairs at the Middle Eastern Forum.

“You can see the actual genocide carried against the Christians in the Middle East with very little protest from these departments, because of so many years of Arab supremacism,” Myers said. “In the main, the Middle East studies departments are anti-Western and anti-Israel.”

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

The prevalence of Saudi money in American higher education “gives incentives for not asking critical questions,” Myers said. Exacerbating this tendency is that asking questions about Islam quickly sparks accusations of racism, said Shireen Qudosi, an American Sufi Muslim who lives in California.

“Because we’re limited our ability to have these conversations it leads to this entitled attitude of ‘Because I’m Muslim I deserve something extra,’” she said from her cell phone in the car as her five-year-old son, Reagan, fussed in the back seat. She excused herself to hand him a snack.

Her frustrations with Islam in American schools are largely social: “Arabs see themselves as superior and their culture as the only authentic Islamic culture. And since they’re the ones with the money, what they say gets put into play.” Since they fear losing jobs and reputation if accused of racism, school administrators and social workers often sideline Muslim-related conflicts, leaving families to fend for themselves.

This also affects curriculum, because it motivates curriculum companies to similarly downplay religious and racial conflict, at the expense of accuracy and substance. High school teacher Elizabeth Altman, for example, spent eight weeks last summer with materials all over her dining room table, “tearing my hair out” to rewrite her Advanced Placement European history class to fit new guidelines: “I tried to take Sundays off. Tried.”

College Board’s AP tests can earn students college credit in high school. In 2015, 110,000 students took the AP European history exam, and for most it will be their last world history class.

“I was thinking ‘I hope I die before graduation so I don’t have to do this’” because the new material is so tedious and vague, said Altman, who is also the assistant principal at Our Lady of the Sacred Heart Academy in Rockford, Illinois, before diving into a detailed explanation of what the College Board left out of its new, 237-page course description.

Goodbye, Religion

Islam is almost completely absent, but it’s not just Islam. Religion, period, has been relegated to a few glancing mentions, notes an extensive review of the curriculum changes from the National Association of Scholars. For example, it treats the Holocaust as a political and racial episode, leaving aside the religious elements.

“To leave religion out as a motivation for war or for domestic policy decisions is to leave out half of the human character,” Altham said. “To treat religious belief as simply a convenient belief of the ruling class is to ignore that the ruling class generally has genuine belief.”

So while ISIS is destroying Roman ruins in Syria because they consider them pagan works of infidels not worth preserving, Western intellectuals are performing an analogous intellectual exercise by erasing major human motivations and pivotal historic events in ways that hamper young Americans’ ability to understand historic and current world affairs, said David Randall, the author of the NAS report.

“Islam is the great inheritor and great rival” to Christian civilization throughout European history, Randall said. “You need to know that.” Since “the war-torn edges between Islam and Christianity depend on the rivalry of religious claims,” it’s impossible to understand European history without understanding exactly what motivated people then—and today.

Joy Pullmann is managing editor of The Federalist and author of the forthcoming “The Education Invasion: How Common Core Fights Parents for Control of American Kids,” from Encounter Books.

Center Assesses ‘28 Pages’ Insights Into Saudi Double-Game, Clinton Role In Exacerbating Threat

3324694900

CENTER ASSESSES ‘28 PAGES’ INSIGHTS INTO SAUDI DOUBLE-GAME AMIDST REVELATIONS OF CLINTON ROLE IN EXACERBATING ITS THREAT HERE

Center for Security Policy, Aug. 9, 2016:

Washington, D.C.: Investigative reporter Paul Sperry revealed yesterday at CounterJihad.com the extent to which Hillary Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State reversed many of the measures put into place after 9/11 to protect the United States from additional Saudi jihadist attacks.

The necessity for such measures was underscored by the contents of the so-called “28 Pages,”a portion of the original congressional investigation conducted in the wake of the death and destruction caused by 15 Saudi nationals and four other Islamic supremacists on September 11, 2001. These pages had, until recently, been withheld from the American people and only were released last month in a redacted form.

The Center for Security Policy released today a white paper entitled “What’s in the 28 Pages?” providing valuable background information about this report and key highlights of its findings and offering recommendations as to a variety of changes with respect to U.S. policy towards Saudi Arabia and other enablers of and participants in the Global Jihad Movement.

Upon releasing this report, Center President Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. observed:

At a moment when Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy judgment and experience are properly the subject of intense scrutiny and debate, her role in undoing sensible measures aimed at protecting this country and its people from further Saudi treachery must be carefully considered. Such an analysis must, in turn, be informed by the insights about a specific and devastating example of such treachery: the 9/11 jihadist attacks on the United States.

The Center’s newest white paper illuminates the 28 Pages’ findings about the extent to which Saudi officials – including long-time ambassador to the United States Prince Bandar – were implicated along with various other nationals of their country, including of course, fifteen out of nineteen of the hijackers. The unmistakable implication is that the status Saudi Arabia enjoyed as a trusted ally prior to September 11, 2001 contributed to the execution of this murderous act of jihad. Similarly, it was eminently sensible after those attacks occurred to reduce dramatically Saudi student visas and to monitor more closely those Saudis coming to and inside the United States.

In light of what’s in the 28 Pages, America needs urgently to revisit decisions taken on Hillary Clinton’s watch that undid such sensible measures – and vigorously question those responsible.

PDF of “What’s in the 28 Pages

Israeli-Saudi Ties Warming; Hizballah and Iran Livid

Image Courtesy of Shutterstock

Image Courtesy of Shutterstock

PJ MEDIA, BY P. DAVID HORNIK, AUGUST 7, 2016:

The Israeli society that I encountered embraces a culture of peace, has accomplishments it wants to (protect), wants coexistence, and wants peace.

Those words weren’t spoken by an enthused congressman after a trip to Israel. They were spoken to BBC Arabic by Abd al-Mujid al-Hakim, director of the Middle East Center for Strategic and Legal Policy in Jedda, Saudi Arabia, and a member of a Saudi delegation that recently visited Israel.

The delegation, which included academics and businessmen, was led by Dr. Anwar Eshki, a retired Saudi general and former top adviser to the Saudi government. About a year earlier Eshki had shaken hands and shared a stage in Washington with Israeli Foreign Ministry director-general Dore Gold—seen as a major breakthrough at the time. But a public visit to Israel of this kind, which could only have been carried out with the approval of the highest level of the Saudi government, is a historical first and still has a taste of the surreal to it.

During the visit Eshki met again with Gold; with Maj.-Gen. Yoav Mordechai, responsible for Israeli administration of the territories; with Palestinian officials in Ramallah; and with opposition Members of Knesset.

One of those opposition MKs, Issawi Frej of the far-left, mostly Jewish Meretz Party, said:

The Saudis want to open up to Israel. It’s a strategic move for them. They want to continue what former Egyptian president Anwar Sadat started (with the 1979 Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty). They want to get closer with Israel, and we could feel it clearly.

What’s going on?

Israeli commentator Yossi Melman, while noting that the visit marks a new plateau in the increasingly overt Israeli-Saudi ties, points out:

[O]n a covert level, according to foreign reports, the ties being cultivated are even more fascinating. Intelligence Online reported that Israel is selling intelligence equipment, as well as control and command centers, to the Saudi security forces. Previously, it had been reported in the foreign media that the heads of the Mossad, the organization responsible for Israel’s covert ties, met with their Saudi counterparts. Media outlets affiliated with Hezbollah even reported that officers from the two countries’ armies had met.

What’s going on, in other words, is that Israel and Saudi Arabia have common enemies in the region, and with American power withdrawing, Israel’s power constantly growing, ISIS threatening, and the Obama administration having paved a path to nuclear weapons for Iran, the Saudis—like Egypt, Jordan, and other Sunni states—are casting their troubled gaze toward Jerusalem.

Or as Melman puts it:

Israel and the Saudis share a fear for Iran’s nuclear program and Tehran’s efforts to increase its influence in the region. They also both have an interest in weakening the standing of Hezbollah, “the forward headquarters” of Iran on Lebanon’s Mediterranean coast. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks often of Israel’s ties with the “Sunni Bloc,” and hints that the Saudis are included in this group.

It appears that he need hint no more.

Last week’s Saudi visit to Jerusalem—a dramatic, even stunning confirmation of Israel’s cooperation with that bloc—did not go unnoticed, of course, by the rival Shiite bloc. And they’re not happy about it.

Hizballah chief Hassan Nasrallah accused the Saudis of “normalizing for free, without receiving anything in return…. It seems the future of Palestine and the fate of its children have become a trivial matter for some Arab states recently.”

The Saudi visit, he said, “couldn’t have taken place without the agreement of the Saudi government. We know how things work there. In Saudi Arabia a person will be lashed for so much as tweeting.”

But if Nasrallah is not pleased with this development, his boss—Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei—is even less thrilled.

As Khamenei tweeted on Monday: “Revelation of Saudi government’s relations with Zionist regime was stab in the back of Islamic Ummah.”

None of this means that the Sunni Arab part of the Ummah is ready to warmly embrace Israel. While in Israel last week, Dr. Eshki—like Egyptian and Jordanian officials before him—said that real “normalization” would have to await a resolution of the Palestinian issue. It’s code for: “We’re not really ready to accept a Jewish state in our midst.”

Still, considering that Israel and Sunni Arab states used to fight wars every few years, a reality of nonbelligerency and pragmatic ties is a major improvement for Israel. Whoever is the next U.S. president might want to cooperate with the Israeli-Sunni alliance against Iran instead of giving the mullahs a “sunset clause” leading to nuclear night.

Saudi Arabia’s ambivalent relationship to terrorism

House of Saud - House of Cards?

House of Saud – House of Cards?

Saudi Arabia is often accused of supporting jihadist groups. Now, the monarchy is helping Berlin’s security authorities in the fight against terror. What appears to be a contradiction is not.

DW, by Kersten Knipp, Aug. 8, 2016:

A jihadi inspired rampage in a regional train near Würzburg; and a bomb attack – designed to kill a large number of people but gone awry – in Ansbach: Both attacks were supposedly orchestrated by men in Saudi Arabia that gave the attackers instructions from afar, via chat.

That is the story the German magazine “Spiegel” is reporting in connection to chat protocols in the possession of federal agencies. The magazine also refers to information provided by a high-ranking government official in the Saudi capital Riyadh. According to the official, several telephone numbers show that the two young men were in close contact with the terrorist organization “Islamic State” (IS) in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government has now announced comprehensive cooperation with Germany in investigating the recent attacks in Bavaria.

For years, Saudi Arabia has been the source of what has appeared to be contradictory information. First, the country is accused of exporting an extremely conservative strain of Sunni Islam known as Wahhabism, which also happens to be the kingdom’s state religion. Shortly after the outbreak of war in Syria, accusations that the monarchy was financing jihadi groups that were not only seeking to topple the Assad government but also create a new “caliphate” under the control of the terror organization “Islamic State” (IS), grew louder. And finally, for years the West has considered Saudi Arabia to be an important partner in the fight against jihadist terror.

Dubious commitment

Sebastian Sons, Middle East expert at the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP), tells DW that the news is not as contradictory as it initially seems. “The Saudi government has been involved in the fight against terror since the attacks on America in September 2001. That was partially a reaction to US pressure. But it was also because institutions in the kingdom were increasingly the target of jihadist attacks as well, first by al-Qaeda and later ‘IS.'”

At the same time there are a number of religious foundations in the country, and some of these, as well as a number of wealthy individuals, have great sympathy for the aims of “IS” and provide the organization with financing. “Such money transactions are now being very closely monitored.” Yet, there is no way to exert total control over them. “Firstly, Saudi Arabia doesn’t have the capacity to do so. And secondly, one has to say that there is serious doubt about whether they have the political will to do so.”

Nevertheless, even if the royal house had the will, it would be able to do little about it. Because the House of Saud, which has controlled the country since it was founded in the eighteenth century, is totally dependent upon the conservative Wahhabis. It is the religious movement that lends the Sauds the ideological legitimacy upon which their rule is based.

Alliance between religion and politics

The moral foundation for the rule of the Sauds was established by a religious scholar hailing from an area near what is now the capital Riyadh. Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, as the scholar was known, was born in 1703, the son of a judge.

Ibn Wahhab developed an entirely new criteria with which to judge the legitimacy of regional rulers. This legitimacy, he said, only existed as long as rulers abided by the tenets of religious faith. Political leaders, according to Wahhab, must comply to the will of god in all that they do. Should they fail to do so, they forfeit their legitimacy.

Thus, subjects were given a clear criteria with which to judge their rulers: Do their actions express the will of god, or not? It was a radically emancipating idea, yet it carried the seed of later abuses in it from the start: For who determines what god’s will is?

Ibn Wahhab came up with a unique solution to the problem: He directly tied religious power to political power. And he did so by seeking out an alliance with the most powerful partner of his day: Prince Saud l., ibn Abd al-Aziz ibn Muhammad al-Saud, the conquerer of the Emirate of Diriyah, the first Saudi state. The prince secured the theological power of his religious partner with his own military might. And in return, the legitimacy of his political rule received the scholar’s religious blessing.

The alliance between these two families, the ruling Sauds and the descendants of ibn-Wahhab responsible for answering all religious questions in the kingdom, has continued to hold until this day.

Unresolved dilemma

This alliance, by necessity, also determines the royal family’s current reaction to terror. “The royal family sees terrorism as an extreme security threat, but it still has to align itself with the Wahhabi scholars in terms of ideology,” says Sebastian Sons. This means that the monarchy is constantly forced to tolerate its – at times radical – world view. They rarely have the luxury of refusing to give their support. “The structure of the Saudi state is based upon the alliance between Wahhabi scholarship and the House of Saud. That is a unsolvable dilemma for the royal family, even today.”

That means that the rest of the world will have to live with the reality of more attacks being orchestrated from Saudi Arabia. As long as ideological extremism cannot be overcome, security measures can only help to a point.

Exclusive: Hillary Rubber-Stamped Visas for Record Number of Saudi Visitors

unnamedCounterJihad, by Paul Sperry, Aug. 8, 2016:

Despite evidence Saudi Arabian terrorists exploit the U.S. visa program, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton doubled the number of visas for Saudi visitors to the U.S., while helping cut a deal with the Kingdom to waive security procedures for Saudi nationals upon their arrival in the U.S, CounterJihad has learned.

The annual number of nonimmigrant visas issued to Saudi nationals soared 93% during Clinton’s tenure as secretary from 2009 to 2013, federal data show, hitting a record 108,578 in fiscal 2013 and reversing a post-9/11 pause in Saudi visa approvals.

Before leaving office, Clinton helped negotiate a little-noticed January 2013 administration deal with Riyadh to allow Saudi visa-holders to enter the U.S. as “trusted travelers” and bypass the normal border security process. The next year, the State Department issued an all-time-high 142,180 Saudi visas, consular data show.

All told, the Obama administration has opened the floodgates to more than 709,000 Saudi nationals, most of whom applied for student or business visas, records show. It’s as if 9/11 never happened and 15 Saudi terrorists never infiltrated the country on rubber-stamped visas. The surge represents a major shift from changes in immigration policy made in the wake of 9/11, when the number of visas issued to Saudi Arabians plummeted 69.7%. In fiscal 2002, Saudi visas slowed to a relative trickle of just 14,126.

Saudi immigration was tightened after it was revealed that the State Department’s Visa Express program benefited some of the Saudi hijackers on 9/11. Less known is that two other al-Qaida-tied Saudi nationals visiting America on student visas also took advantage of the lax policy. It turns out these other young Saudi men made a “dry run” to test airline security ahead of the 9/11 hijackings.

According to the recently declassified 29 pages of the congressional joint inquiry report on 9/11, Mohammed al-Qudhaeein and Hamdan al-Shalawi, both Saudi students living in the Phoenix area, tried several times to gain access to the cockpit of an America West flight while traveling to Washington to attend a party at the Saudi Embassy in 1999. Their airline tickets were paid for by the Saudi government, the documents reveal.

The FBI suspected al-Qudhaeein was a Saudi intelligence agent bankrolled by the Saudi Embassy, and agents subsequently received information that al-Shalawi trained in al-Qaida camps in Afghanistan and operated in the same circle with the Saudi hijacker who flew the plane into the Pentagon.

Coming into office in 2009, Clinton issued a cable warning diplomats that Saudi Arabia was still sponsoring al-Qaida terrorist operations.

“More needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaida,” states a Wikileaked secret December 2009 memo signed by the then-secretary of state. Her memo urged U.S. diplomats to redouble their efforts to stop Saudi money reaching terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

“Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide,” Clinton said.

Nonimmigrant Visa Issuances, Saudi Arabia, FY1997-2014

Nonimmigrant Visa Issuances, Saudi Arabia, FY1997-2014

In spite of her own warnings about continued Saudi-sponsored terrorism, however, she and President Obama quietly struck a deal to fast-track more Saudi students for U.S. entry during a series of high-level meetings in January 2013 with the Saudi interior minister, who had complained about delays in the security screening process and lobbied for more student visas.

Clinton, whose family foundation has received tens of millions of dollars from Saudi Arabian donors, can be seen here meeting at her State Department office with Saudi Interior Minister Prince Mohammed bin Nayef bin Abdulaziz on the same day — Jan. 16, 2013 — that Prince Mohammed signed an agreement to join America’s trusted traveler program known as Global Entry.

As a member of the trusted traveler program, the U.S. now trusts Saudi Arabians as much as it does Canadians, who as longtime program members are considered low-risk travelers and pre-approved for entry, and more so than Germans or French, who aren’t included in the program. Thanks to the Obama administration, Saudi visitors now enjoy expedited security clearance. They bypass the normal Customs screening and proceed to Global Entry kiosks, where they receive a transaction receipt that directs them to baggage claim and exit.

In other words, Saudi visitors now go to the front of the line and skip normal Homeland Security inspections. And federal authorities now share background checking and other pre-screening duties with the Saudis.

The trusted traveler program kicks the door open to thousands of young Saudi men who will be able to stay legally in the U.S. for five years on student and vocational visas. And they won’t be monitored while they’re here. The feds stopped tracking their stays here several years ago after the Saudi embassy, along with the terrorist front group Council on American-Islamic Relations, protested to the White House and State Department.

That means terrorists among the new Saudi entrants can enter the U.S. and continue to test flight security or plot attacks while pretending to go to college. Authorities now have no idea if a Saudi national entering on a student visa actually reported to campus.

“Why would we trust them?” 9/11 survivor Sharon Premoli demanded in an interview with the Investigative Project on Terrorism. Indeed, several Saudi visa-holders have been busted plotting terrorism or testing airline security in recent years. For example:

  • In 2013, a young Saudi immigrant living in Oregon on an expired visa was arrested for conducting a suspected dry run during a Continental Airlines flight bound for Houston. He screamed “Allah Akbar” while trying to light something in the plane’s cabin.
  • In 2011, a Saudi student was arrested on charges of plotting to bomb the Texas home of former President George W. Bush.

The Saudis can also use their vocational visas to enroll in U.S. flight schools as the hijackers did.

A recent study by the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies found that three of the five top M-1 approved schools in the U.S. are flight schools. It also found that thousands of Saudis have arrived here on M-1 visas since Clinton loosened visa restrictions for travelers from the Kingdom.

Authorities are having a hard enough time dealing with all the homegrown terrorists cropping up. The FBI has more than 1,000 terrorism cases open on ISIS suspects in all 50 states. Agents don’t need new waves of young Muslim men from Saudi Arabia to worry about tracking, as well.

By dumping potentially thousands more Saudi extremists into the homeland security system, the administration is worsening the odds that law enforcement can catch terrorists before they strike.

Bill Clinton Got Millions From World’s Biggest Sharia Law Education Firm

Bill Clinton gives a thumbs up to attendees on the fourth day of the Democratic National Convention (Getty Images)

Bill Clinton gives a thumbs up to attendees on the fourth day of the Democratic National Convention (Getty Images)

Daily Caller, by Richard Pollock, Aug. 3, 2016:

Former President Bill Clinton collected $5.6 million in fees from GEMS Education, a Dubai-based company that teaches Sharia Law through its network of more than 100 schools in the Middle East, Asia and Africa, according to a Daily Caller News Foundation investigation.

The company’s finances strictly adhere to “Sharia Finance,” which includes giving “zakat,” a religious tax of which one-eighth of the proceeds is dedicated to funding Islamic jihad.

The company also contributed millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation.

The former president served as honorary chairman for GEMS Education from 2011 to 2014, according to federal tax returns he filed with his wife, 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

His biggest paycheck from the closely-held company — which is incorporated in the Cayman Islands — was in 2014 when he pocketed $2.1 million. It is unclear if Bill received income from the Middle Eastern firm in 2015, since Hillary has not yet released her tax return for that year.

Sharia law is the Islamic religious legal system that many in the West see as intolerant of human rights and other religions, as well as violating the rights of women and gays. Sharia law is considered by Muslims to be superior to all secular authorities. Islamic jihadis regularly call for the imposition of Sharia law and want to impose it on the West.

GEMS boasted in a 2013 bond prospectus that it is the “only foreign group approved for educational services in Saudi Arabia.” The GEMS facilities in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, taught 1,600 students in 2013.

Saudi Arabia is where Wahabism, the strictest form of Sharia, is observed. The Middle Eastern kingdom bars women from driving cars, requires women to wear the strictest form of the hijab, which covers everything but the eyes and hands. Gay men and women are persecuted in Saudi Arabia.

GEMS distributed a job notice in 2014 for a director of “Islamic and Cultural Studies” for its campuses in the Saudi Kingdom. The skills for the position included proficiency in Sharia to help develop a curriculum. The company also acts as an educational consultant in Egypt, Jordan, and Libya.

Clinton’s relationship with the Sharia-oriented education firm drew critical reviews from anti-terrorism experts.

“Why would Bill Clinton be participating in programs that teach Sharia in foreign countries where that is the specific objective of the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS and al-Qaeda,” asked counter-terror analyst Stephen Coughlin in an interview with TheDCNF.

Read  more

Panic Mode: Khizr Khan Deletes Law Firm Website that Specialized in Muslim Immigration

AFP

AFP

Breitbart, by Matthew Boyle, August 2, 2016:

Khizr Khan, the Muslim Gold Star father that Democrats and their allies media wide have been using to hammer GOP presidential nominee Donald J. Trump, has deleted his law firm’s website from the Internet.

This development is significant, as his website proved—as Breitbart News and others have reported—that he financially benefits from unfettered pay-to-play Muslim migration into America.

A snapshot of his now deleted website, as captured by the Wayback Machine which takes snapshots archiving various websites on the Internet, shows that as a lawyer he engages in procurement of EB5 immigration visas and other “Related Immigration Services.”

The website is completely removed from the Internet, and instead directs visitors to the URL at which it once was to a page parking the URL run by GoDaddy.

The EB5 program, which helps wealthy foreigners usually from the Middle East essentially buy their way into America, is fraught with corruption. U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has detailed such corruption over the past several months, and in February issued a blistering statement about it.

“Maybe it is only here on Capitol Hill—on this island surrounded by reality—that we can choose to plug our ears and refuse to listen to commonly accepted facts,” Grassley said in a statement earlier this year. “The Government Accountability Office, the media, industry experts, members of congress, and federal agency officials, have concurred that the program is a serious problem with serious vulnerabilities. Allow me to mention a few of the flaws.”

Grassley’s statement even noted that the program Khan celebrated on his website has posed national security risks.

“There are also classified reports that detail the national security, fraud and abuse. Our committee has received numerous briefings and classified documents to show this side of the story,” Grassley said in the early February 2016 statement. “The enforcement arm of the Department of Homeland Security wrote an internal memo that raises significant concerns about the program. One section of the memo outlines concerns that it could be used by Iranian operatives to infiltrate the United States. The memo identifies seven main areas of program vulnerability, including the export of sensitive technology, economic espionage, use by foreign government agents and terrorists, investment fraud, illicit finance and money laundering.”

Khan spoke alongside his wife Ghazala Khan at the Democratic National Convention last week in Philadelphia, and they were honoring their son U.S. Army Captain Humayun Khan—a hero who lost his life to a suicide bomber in Iraq in 2004. On behalf of Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic nominee for president, Khizr Khan ripped into Donald Trump’s policies on immigration—specifically bashing his plan to bar Muslim migration from regions afflicted with rampant terrorism into America temporarily until the United States can figure out what’s going on.

Khan even brought out a pocket Constitution, claiming inaccurately that Trump’s plans were unconstitutional. That’s not true, as Congress has already granted such power to the president under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952—allowing the president to bar migration of any alien or class of aliens the president sees as a threat to the United States for any reason at any time. Such a class of aliens could be Muslims, or it could be people from a specific region of the world, or any other class—such as someone’s race, weight, height, age, national origin, religion, or anything else.

The media, along with Hillary Clinton and her supporters throughout the Democratic Party establishment, has pushed the line of attack against Trump for days. Now on Tuesday, President Barack Obama has said that Trump is “unfit” to serve as President over the matter. Even a group of anti-Trump congressional Republicans has gone after Trump on the matter.

But as Breitbart News and other new media have exposed Khan’s various deep political and legal connections to the Clintons—and to Muslim migration—the attack line has crumbled. Now, with Khan deleting his website in an apparent effort to hide his biographical information, the attack is falling apart even more.

What’s perhaps interesting is that also on this website that he has now deleted, Khan revealed that he spent nearly a decade working for the mega-D.C. law firm Hogan & Hartson—now Hogan Lovells LLP—which connects him directly with the government of Saudi Arabia and the Clintons themselves. Saudi Arabia, which has retained the firm that Khan worked at for years, has donated between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation. Hillary Clinton, despite the repeated urging of Trump, has refused to return the Clinton Cash money to the Saudis. What’s more, Hogan Lovells also did Hillary Clinton’s taxes—and helped acquire the patents for parts of the technology she used in crafting her illicit home-brew email server that the FBI director called “extremely careless” in handling classified information.

What’s more, the entire mainstream has proven negligence with regard to this matter as none of them even thought to look into this Khan guy’s law practice before bandying him about as some kind of magic elixir that cures the country of Trump. 

Khizr Khan’s Saudi Ties

sd

Front Page Magazine, by Robert Spencer, August 2, 2016:

Are the Saudis trying to make sure that the candidate of their choice is elected President of the United States this November?

Khizr Khan is more than just the father of slain Muslim U.S. serviceman Humayun Khan and the mainstream media’s flavor of the moment in its ongoing efforts to demonize and destroy Donald Trump. As far as the Obama administration and Hillary campaign are concerned, he is a living validation of the success of their strategy against “extremism”: by refusing to identify the enemy as having anything to do with Islam, they draw moderate Muslims to their side and move them to fight against terrorism. By contrast, Trump, in their view, alienates these moderates and drives them into the arms of the terrorists.

That all sounds great. There’s just one catch: Khizr Khan, and the Clinton campaign, have extensive ties to the Saudis – far more extensive than any possible connection that Donald Trump’s campaign may have had to Russia’s alleged involvement in the leak of emails that revealed that the entire Democratic Party presidential nominating process was rigged from the start. Not that the mainstream media will pause from speculating about Trump and the Russians long enough to tell you any facts about Khizr Khan, Hillary and the Saudis.

Intelius records that Khizr Khan has worked at Hogan Lovells Llp. According to the Washington Free Beacon, “Hogan Lovells LLP, another U.S. firm hired by the Saudis, is registered to work for the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia through 2016, disclosures show. Robert Kyle, a lobbyist from the firm, has bundled $50,850 for Clinton’s campaign.”

The Free Beacon added that the Saudi government has “supplied the Clinton Foundation with millions. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has given between $10 and $25 million to the foundation while Friends of Saudi Arabia has contributed between $1 and $5 million.”

And so we were treated to the spectacle of an employee of a firm that is registered to work for the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia lambasting Donald Trump at the Democratic National Convention, and then (lo and behold!) becoming a media darling as he excoriates Trump for his “black soul.”

Might the government of Saudi Arabia, which has spent countless bullions of dollars spreading the virulent and violent Wahhabi strain of Islam around the world, have any interest in making sure that a presidential candidate who speaks more forthrightly about the Islamic terror threat than any presidential candidate has since John Quincy Adams, and who has vowed to take concrete steps to counter that threat, is defeated? Is that why Khizr Khan, brimming with self-righteous indignation and misleading disinformation about the relationship of Islamic jihad terrorism to Islam, was not only featured at the Democratic National Convention but has dominated the news cycle ever since?

This has gone on long enough. The 28-page section of the 9/11 report detailing Saudi involvement in the September 11, 2001 jihad attacks were just finally released (albeit with substantial portions still redacted), after being kept classified for fifteen years by one President who held hands with the Saudi King and another who bowed to him. And for fifteen years, the U.S. has done little or nothing to free itself from dependence upon Saudi oil and develop alternative energy sources. Why not? We know the Saudis have kept the Clintons’ palms abundantly greased. Who else’s?

The big story of foreign influence in this presidential election is not some vague imaginings about the Russians supposedly hacking Democratic National Committee emails showing the Democrats engaged in indisputably unethical behavior. The real foreign influence story in this election involves the Saudis and the Democrats. Saudi influence in Washington must end. Khizr Khan represents an all-out effort by the mainstream media and the Democratic Party establishment to maintain that influence. In light of that, Donald Trump was right to answer his attacks, and should have been even stronger in his responses. It’s time for the United States of America to regain its independence.

Report: Clinton’s Campaign Cash is 20% Royal Saudi Money

Screen-Shot-2015-12-18-at-4.52.50-PM

CounterJihad, June 15, 2016:

A report from Jordan’s Petra News Agency quoted Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman claiming that the Saudi government was funding fully one-fifth of Hillary Clinton’s campaign for President.  After a Washington DC based think tank translated and captured the report, Petra deleted the emails and stopped responding to requests for comments on the article.  Saudi-owned Al Arabiya news is now claiming that Petra was hacked, and the comments were false.  Foreign influence of US elections by financing candidates is illegal.  If the report was accurate, Zero Hedge estimates that the amount of royal Saudi money in Hillary’s coffers would be more than forty million dollars.

Was the article legitimate?  Prince Salman is on a visit to the United States right now.  Aside from that one comment, the rest of the article is quite standard diplomatic fare.  Salman’s other reported remarks were on the special relationship Saudi Arabia shares with the United States, and of the king’s enthusiastic support for Hillary Clinton as a female candidate for President.  They are not damaging remarks, in other words, but exactly the sort of ordinary things diplomats say right before a trip to visit a foreign country.  That gives credibility to the idea that this may have been a legitimate news story that accidentally revealed a major crime.

There are two more reasons to take the article seriously.  The first is that the Clinton campaign, and Democrats in general, have a long history of accepting illegal foreign money.  The Hill reported that in 1997 illegal donations from China funded an early Clinton advertising blast against the Dole campaign.  Senator Fred Thompson’s hearings the next year exposed a vast network of foreign donors who had contributed to Bill Clinton’s re-election.

By 2008 Clinton was overtaken by Barack Obama in manipulating the system to allow foreign donations.  The Obama campaign disabled credit card safety mechanisms on its online donation sites that would have identified foreign accounts.  They continued the practice in the 2012 re-election campaign against Mitt Romney, who observed the practice of demanding the security information.  The campaign was eventually fined hundreds of thousands of dollars for their misbehavior, but only after it was too late.

In preparation for the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton’s foundation has received vast sums of money from foreign powers.  A lot of this money was definitely Saudi, so if her campaign has developed a mechanism for passing money from the foundation to the campaign the claim is extremely plausible.

The second reason that the claim is plausible is that there is strong prima facie evidence that Clinton provided quid pro quo.  Saudi Arabia was one of several Middle Eastern governments who obtained greatly increased access to US military weaponry under the Clinton State Department.  Their large-scale donations to her foundation show every sign of having been persuasive in her decisions to permit them to buy advanced weapons of war.

Likewise, former Homeland Security agent Phil Haney has revealed that Clinton’s State Department personally stepped in and forced his agency to cease investigations into radical mosques, including the one linked to this weekend’s terrorist shooting in Orlando.  In fact, according to Haney, the Clinton State Department not only stopped the investigations but required Homeland Security to destroy its records of the investigation so far.

For these reasons, there is every reason to take seriously the Petra report that Saudi Arabia is enthusiastic about electing her — and funding her campaign to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.  Indeed it is without doubt she has taken very large amounts of Saudi money.  The only question is how much of it has made its way into her campaign for President.

MORE ABOUT CIVILIZATION JIHAD

5 Troubling Takeaways From The Declassified 9/11 Pages

1534157424

Center for Security Policy, by Benjamin Weingarten, July 20, 2016:

The infamous 28 previously classified pages from Congress’ joint inquiry into intelligence activities surrounding 9/11 represent far more than a symbolic reckoning with a politically controversial history of apparent Saudi duplicity that the U.S. government felt it imperative to suppress.

As we continue to be struck by jihadists at home and abroad under an at best rudderless and at worst suicidal national security and foreign policy, the report’s substance is live, relevant and beckons critical questions that ought to be demanded by our representatives and the public at large.

Why the federal government in general, and Bush and Obama administrations in particular, sought to keep such information from the public for 15 years is a worthy question, as is the question of why law enforcement did not move to arrest and prosecute or deport many of the individuals associated with the 9/11 attack that were under investigation.

Hindsight is 20/20, it is an open secret that diplomatic officials in foreign countries frequently are involved in pernicious activities like espionage and are provided with certain privileges and immunities if not legally than politically derived. Intelligence and law enforcement officials must use their discretion as to whether to move on suspects or continue monitoring them in the hopes of uncovering bigger networks and threats.

But the suspicious activities and associations of the individuals described in these 28 pages are well beyond the pale, as are many of the report’s other findings.

Here are five of the most consequential points from the 28 declassified pages, along with the critical questions we must be demanding of our government:

  1. America subordinated National Security to politicsThe first page of the report notes that “Prior to September 11th, the FBI apparently did not focus investigative resources on [redacted] Saudi nationals in the United States due to Saudi Arabia’s status as an American “ally.”Given the House of Saud’s longtime funding of and overall support for Islamic supremacist Wahhabism around the world, this admission is stunning.And it raises questions that we should be asking today.

    Does the intelligence community not focus investigative resources on Saudi nationals in America today? How about nationals from other Sunni nations in the Middle East that harbor jihadists? What about Iranian nationals, now that the Islamic Republic upon whom we have lavished over $100 billion and offered protection of their nuclear infrastructure has become ade facto ally against ISIS?

    Was the decision not to pursue Saudi nationals a conscious move to subordinate national security considerations to political ones? Is this still American policy?

    There are other revelations as well that merit grave concern and inquiry.

  2. Jihadi front group Proliferated on American soil (and they persist)

    Omar al-Bayoumi, a suspected Saudi intelligence officer who “provided substantial assistance” to two of the 9/11 hijackers was reportedly in contact with individuals under FBI investigation. He also communicated with others at the Holy Land Foundation, which had been under investigation for and ultimately would be charged with providing material support for Hamas as a fundraising front.The federal government today considers individuals from Muslim Brotherhood-tied groups to be legitimate law enforcement partners with whom to consult and to whom to outsource Countering Violent Extremism efforts. Glaringly, law enforcement continues to collaborate with The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)—an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case—in spite of policies to the contrary.Does law enforcement work to identify and monitor the activities of such groups? What are the standards for shutting down such groups? Does law enforcement monitor the activities of those tied to such groups and pursue investigations when merited? What specific policies and practices in place today would prevent other Omar al-Bayoumis from operating on American soil?

  3. Islamic Supremacist Mosques Proliferated on American Soil (And They Persist)

    Several times the 28 pages’ authors make reference to a mosque “widely known for its anti-Western views” that was created in 1998 with funding from the late Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Abdulaziz. The Culver City, CA-based King Fahad Mosque, then led by among others jihadist-supporting imam Sheikh al-Thumairy—an accredited diplomat at the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles—remains open today.This raises a number of questions.If the King Fahad Mosque has not been shut down in spite of the facts described above, on what grounds would the government shut down a mosque? What, if any policies, has the federal government considered in connection with the funding of mosques and other institutions in the U.S. from regimes with ties to jihad? Does law enforcement monitor mosques for anti-Western or other subversive views today? Given exemptions for religious experts, what immigration protections are there to stop Islamic supremacist imams from entering the U.S.?It bears noting that a survey of 100 mosques in America revealed that 84.5% of such mosques had an imam recommending studying violence-positive texts. 58% of mosques invited guest imams who had been known to promote violent jihad.
  4. Jihadists believed Islamic supremacist immigration had hit critical mass over a decade ago

    Another vital section of the report concerns Osama Bassnan, an individual with extensive ties to both two of the 9/11 hijackers and the Saudi government. Page 428 reads:

    Bassnan…stated to an FBI asset that he heard that the U.S. Government had stopped approving visas for foreign students. He considered such measures to be insufficient as there are already enough Muslims in the United States to destroy the United States and make it an Islamic state within ten to fifteen years.

    Juxtapose this statement with the fact that America has admitted approximately 1.6 million immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries between 2001 and 2013, among other critical data on Islamic immigration compiled by Conservative Review’s Daniel Horowitz.

    While Bassnan is just one man, whether our federal government recognizes it or not, immigration is a tenet of jihad known as “Al-Hijra.” While we fret over the potential for jihadist infiltration among refugees from the Middle East today, over a decade ago Islamic supremacists were already claiming that there was a critical mass of Islamic supremacists ready, willing and able to ultimately take down America.

    Should not all future immigration policies be formulated based upon an understanding of the jihadis’ goals, strategies and tactics? Should not current homeland security policies be focused upon isolating and removing the jihadist cancer already metastasizing within?

  5. Saudi self-interest trumped all, and America was (and is) willfully blind

    One of the most significant statements in the declassified pages comes courtesy of a veteran New York FBI agent. In light of Saudi recalcitrance when it came to Islamic terrorism investigations before and after 9/11, this agent “stated that, from his point of view, the Saudis have been useless and obstructionist for years. In this agent’s opinion, the Saudis will only act when it is in their self-interest.”The report goes on to cite several examples of Saudi non-cooperation.

    What is so critical here is that the FBI agent in question identified openly and honestly the nature of the House of Saud. His description could work for practically all other regimes not only in the Middle East but throughout the world.

    One wonders, does U.S. foreign policy start from the first principle of identifying the nature of such regimes, as well as non-state actors with whom they may or may not be allied?

I would submit that self-evidently our national security and foreign policies do not recognize the comprehensive nature of the jihadist threat, Sunni and Shia, state and non-state, violent and civilizational, as has been reflected in numerous examples from the revelations of the recent Senate Judiciary Committee “willful blindness” hearing, to the redaction of the Orlando jihadist transcript, to the purging of documents that identify the very nature of the jihadist threat on American soil from law enforcement offices.

Given the perilous state of America’s national security and foreign policy today with respect to a global jihadist enemy that we fail to even call by its name, it is readily apparent that while we may have identified failures in connection with 9/11, we have not adequately answered the question as to what we must do to prevent such failures in the future.

The declassified 28 pages provide another opportunity for us to ask the necessary questions and seek out answers that may mean the difference between life and death for our nation.

Also see:

A former CIA clandestine officer’s take on the shariah threat

571726492

Secure Freedom Radio, July 19, 2016:

CLARE LOPEZ, Vice President for Research & Analysis at the Center for Security Policy, former CIA clandestine officer:

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

  • Violence against law enforcement continues – this time in Baton Rouge, LA.
  • Unholy alliance between the US Muslim Brotherhood, Black Lives Matter, and Alinskyite Anarchists
  • Damage done by the US Council of Muslim Organizations and its sister organizations across the Western world

(PART TWO): (podcast2): Play in new window | Download

  • Political agenda of those under the USCMO umbrella
  • Explaining shariah
  • Donald Trump and other GOP leaders’ stance concerning refugee resettlement from Muslim nations

(PART THREE): (podcast3): Play in new window | Download

  • Implications of the failed coup in Turkey
  • How the AKP Party has weakened the Turkish military
  • The Gulenist Movement
  • Aspects of jihad still present in Sufism

(PART FOUR): (podcast4): Play in new window | Download

  • Classified 28 pages of the 9/11 report made public
  • Future implications for the US/Saudi alliance
  • Iran and Hezbollah roles in 9/11
  • Instances of Shia and Sunni cooperation in terrorizing the West

(PART FIVE): (podcast5): Play in new window | Download

  • What to expect from a nuclear Iran
  • Can the MEK Party force regime change in Tehran?
  • Update on Hillary Clinton in regards to Benghazi