Categories
Archives
HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN
target="_top">

Posts Tagged ‘Muslim Brotherhood’

Has the New York Times Just Provided Proof of Muslim Brotherhood Influencing Operations in the United States?

Islam12The New York Times published a comprehensive article on September 7th entitled, “Foreign Powers Buy Influence at Think Tanks.” The article documents multi-million dollar donations to Washington-based think tanks that include the Brookings Institution, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the Atlantic Council, by foreign governments as a way of buying influence in Washington.

For example, the government of Qatar made a $14.8 million donation to the Brookings Institution. It is a matter of public record that Qatar is a key funder and supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood and, indeed, that supporting Muslim Brotherhood parties has been a cornerstone of Qatar’s foreign policy.

According to Middle East Monitor, The Emir of Qatar, Shaikh Tamim bin-Hamad, said that support for the Muslim Brotherhood is a “duty” for which no thanks are necessary. Qatar is home to the pro-Brotherhood channel Al Jazeera, to Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, considered the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Qatar has directly funded a number of Muslim Brotherhood entities, including Hamas and the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. Qatar has also provided refuge to many exiled Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood leaders.

Read more at http://visiontoamerica.com/18684/has-the-new-york-times-just-provided-proof-of-muslim-brotherhood-influencing-operations-in-the-united-states/#KOJMe50e5V7UFOH5.99

White House aide linked to al-Qaida funder

Mehdi_Alhassani_1
Mehdi Alhassani (middle) at the White House
There is a troubling common thread that links Hillary Clinton’s former chief of staff to the current special assistant to the National Security Council chief of staff of the military’s Islamic chaplain program.

The thread is more radical than the Muslim Brotherhood. It is the Muslim World League, a group accused of financing al-Qaida fronts. The organization’s offshoots have been declared official terrorist organizations by both the State Department and the United Nations.

Yet despite the troubling facts, Muslim World League-linked individuals have been in key national security positions and are currently helping to run the military’s chaplain program.

The case of Mehdi K. Alhassani, special assistant to the Office of the Chief of Staff of the National Security Council, drew attention last week in the blogosphere after former PLO operative Walid Shoebat reported on Alhassani’s ties to Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups.

Alhassani’s name emerged in an administration email made public last week as part of a Judicial Watch lawsuit. The email was sent three days after the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi attack to Alhassani and other officials from Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security adviser for strategic communication.

In the email, Rhodes communicates the need to “underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”

Alhassani, it has emerged, was president of the Muslim Student Association at George Washington University from 2005 to 2006. The MSA was openly founded by Muslim Brotherhood activists.

While the MSA was founded by Brotherhood activists, its roots are far more dangerous and tie into both Clinton’s deputy chief of staff and adviser, Huma Abedin, and Alhassani as well as the military’s chaplain program.

Start-up funding for the MSA was provided by the Saudi Arabian charity the Muslim World League, or MWL.

Jihad is our way

As Shoebat reported, Abedin served on the board of the MSA at George Washington University in 1997.

The MSA’s official anthem is a restatement of the Muslim Brotherhood credo.

It states:

Allah is our objective

The Prophet is our leader

The Quran is our law

Jihad is our way

Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope

WND previously attended an MSA event at which violence against the U.S. was urged by speakers.

“We are not Americans,” shouted one speaker, Muhammad Faheed, at Queensborough Community College in 2003. “We are Muslims. [The U.S.] is going to deport and attack us! It is us versus them! Truth against falsehood! The colonizers and masters against the oppressed, and we will burn down the master’s house!”

WND reported Abedin worked on the editorial board of her father’s Saudi-financed Islamic think tank alongside Abdullah Omar Naseef, secretary-general of the Muslim World League. Naseef is deeply connected to the Abedin family.

Huma’s father, Professor Syed Abedin, was the founder of the Institute for Minority Affairs, a Saudi group that reportedly had the quiet, but active, support of Naseef.

Huma’s mother, Saleha, is currently the editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, the publication of Syed’s institute.

The institute bills itself as “the only scholarly institution dedicated to the systematic study of Muslim communities in non-Muslim societies around the world.”

Huma served on the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs’s editorial board from 2002 to 2008. Documents previously obtained by Shoebat reveal that Naseef served on the board with Huma from at least December 2002 to December 2003.

Naseef’s sudden departure from the board in December 2003 coincides with a time at which various charities led by Naseef’s Muslim World League were declared illegal terrorism fronts worldwide, including by the U.S. and U.N.

Saleha Abedin has been quoted in numerous press accounts as both representing the MWL and serving as a delegate for the charity.

The MWL, founded in Mecca in 1962, bills itself as one of the largest Islamic non-governmental organizations.

But according to U.S. government documents and testimony from the charity’s own officials, it is heavily financed by the Saudi government.

The MWL has been accused of terrorist ties, as have its various offshoots, including the International Islamic Relief Organization, or IIRO, and Al Haramain, which was declared by the U.S. and U.N. as a terror-financing front.

Indeed, the Treasury Department, in a September 2004 press release, alleged Al Haramain had “direct links” with Osama bin Laden. The group is now banned worldwide by United Nations Security Council Committee 1267.

There long have been accusations that the IIRO and MWL also repeatedly funded al-Qaida.

In 1993, bin Laden reportedly told an associate that the MWL was one of his three most important charity fronts.

An Anti-Defamation League profile of the MWL accuses the group of promulgating a “fundamentalist interpretation of Islam around the world through a large network of charities and affiliated organizations.”

“Its ideological backbone is based on an extremist interpretation of Islam,” the profile states, “and several of its affiliated groups and individuals have been linked to terror-related activity.”

In 2003, U.S. News and World Report documented that accompanying the MWL’s donations, invariably, are “a blizzard of Wahhabist literature.”

“Critics argue that Wahhabism’s more extreme preachings – mistrust of infidels, branding of rival sects as apostates and emphasis on violent jihad –laid the groundwork for terrorist groups around the world,” the report continued.

An Egyptian-American cab driver, Ihab Mohamed Ali Nawawi, was arrested in Florida in 1990 on accusations he was an al-Qaida sleeper agent and a former personal pilot to bin Laden. At the time he was accused of serving bin Laden, he also reportedly worked for the Pakistani branch of the MWL.

The MWL in 1988 founded the Al Haramain Islamic Foundation, developing chapters in about 50 countries, including for a time in Oregon until it was designated a terrorist organization.

In the early 1990s, evidence began to grow that the foundation was funding Islamic militants in Somalia and Bosnia, and a 1996 CIA report detailed its Bosnian militant ties.

The U.S. Treasury designated Al Haramain’s offices in Kenya and Tanzania as sponsors of terrorism for their role in planning and funding the 1998 bombings of two American embassies in East Africa. The Comoros Islands office was also designated because it “was used as a staging area and exfiltration route for the perpetrators of the 1998 bombings.”

The New York Times reported in 2003 that Al Haramain had provided funds to the Indonesian terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah, which was responsible for the 2002 Bali bombings that killed 202 people. The Indonesia office was later designated a terrorist entity by the Treasury.

In February 2004, the U.S. Treasury Department froze all of Al Haramain’s financial assets pending an investigation, leading the Saudi government to disband the charity and fold it into another group, the Saudi National Commission for Relief and Charity Work Abroad.

In September 2004, the U.S. designated Al-Haramain a terrorist organization.

In June 2008, the Treasury Department applied the terrorist designation to the entire Al-Haramain organization worldwide

Bin Laden’s brother-in-law

In August 2006, the Treasury Department also designated the Philippine and Indonesian branch offices of the MWL-founded IIRO as terrorist entities “for facilitating fundraising for al-Qaida and affiliated terrorist groups.”

The Treasury Department added: “Abd Al Hamid Sulaiman Al-Mujil, a high-ranking IIRO official [executive director of its Eastern Province Branch] in Saudi Arabia, has used his position to bankroll the al-Qaida network in Southeast Asia. Al-Mujil has a long record of supporting Islamic militant groups, and he has maintained a cell of regular financial donors in the Middle East who support extremist causes.”

In the 1980s, Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, Osama bin Laden’s brother-in-law, ran the Philippines offices of the IIRO. Khalifa has been linked to Manila-based plots to target the pope and U.S. airlines.

The IIRO has also been accused of funding Hamas, Algerian radicals, Afghanistan militant bases and the Egyptian terror group Al-Gamaa al-Islamiyya.

The New York Post reported the families of the 9/11 victims filed a lawsuit against IIRO and other Muslim organizations for having “played key roles in laundering of funds to the terrorists in the 1998 African embassy bombings” and for having been involved in the “financing and ‘aiding and abetting’ of terrorists in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.”

‘Saudi government front’

In a court case in Canada, Arafat El-Asahi, the Canadian director of both the IIRO and the MWL, admitted the charities are near entities of the Saudi government.

Stated El-Asahi: “The Muslim World League, which is the mother of IIRO, is a fully government-funded organization. In other words, I work for the government of Saudi Arabia. I am an employee of that government.

“Second, the IIRO is the relief branch of that organization, which means that we are controlled in all our activities and plans by the government of Saudi Arabia. Keep that in mind, please,” he said.

Despite its offshoots being implicated in terror financing, the U.S. government never designated the MWL itself as a terror-financing charity. Many have speculated the U.S. has been trying to not embarrass the Saudi government.

Muslim chaplain program

In his blog posting last week, Shoebat reported Alhassani attended the Islamic Center of Boston in Wayland, Massachusetts, the sister mosque to the Islamic Society of Boston, which was founded by convicted terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi.

WND first reported on Alamoudi’s role in founding the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council, created in 1991 and operating under the umbrella of the American Muslim Foundation.

The group was the official endorsing agency of the military’s Muslim chaplain program along with the Muslim Brotherhood-tied Islamic Society of North America, or ISNA.

ISNA, an unindicted co-conspirator in a scheme to raise money for Hamas, is still the official endorsing agency for all Muslim chaplains in the U.S. military.

Alamoudi is an Islamic cleric who served as an Islamic adviser to President Bill Clinton and who guided the establishment of the military’s Muslim chaplain program.

Alamoudi reportedly handpicked the army’s first Islamic chaplain, Imam Abdul-Rasheed Muhammad, who still serves in that position. It was Muhammad who endorsed the most recent Islamic chaplains who just joined the military.

Alamoudi was instrumental in the selection of several of the military’s other Islamic chaplains.

Alamoudi currently is serving a 23-year sentence for terrorism-related financial transactions with the Libyan government and for his alleged role in a Libyan conspiracy to assassinate then-Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah.

Alamoudi was described as an “expert in the art of deception” in a report by Newsweek journalists Mark Hosenball and Michael Isikoff.

The Newsweek article noted Alamoudi espoused moderate, pro-American views while lobbying for Muslim causes in the U.S. but then expressed support for Hamas and Hezbollah at a rally.

Alamoudi founded the American Muslim Council in 1990, a lobbying group to advocate on behalf of Muslims in the United States.

The first Islamic military chaplain, Muhammad, is himself tied to the al-Qaida-front Muslim World League.

Muhammad was recommended for appointment by Alamoudi’s American Islamic Council.

Alamoudi attended Muhammad’s swearing-in ceremony just as he was present for the 1996 swearing-in of the military’s second Muslim chaplain, Lt. (junior grade) Monje Malak Abd al-Muta Ali Noel Jr.

Muhammad is a convert to Islam. In 1974, he joined the Lost-Found Nation of Islam, a black Muslim group that espoused racial separatism and black nationalism. Muhammad later said he did not fully subscribe to the radical group’s philosophy but was attracted by what he said was the organization’s emphasis on personal responsibility and self-help.

“In the projects where I grew up,” Muhammad said, “the women were exploited. In the Nation of Islam the men were always polite. They were always clean cut. I felt the Nation of Islam had more to offer than the church.”

In a 1993 interview with Muslehuddin Ahmed of Islam4all.com, Muhammad detailed his association with the Muslim World League.

The website reports Muhammad was in dialogue with the charity to help establish the army’s Muslim chaplain program.

During the period of Muhammad’s association with the MWL, the group spawned Muslim charities that were alleged fronts for al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden.

Muhammad recounted to Islam4all that he was an “honored guest” of the MWL for his pilgrimage to Mecca.

“He was also full of praise for the Muslim World League for its excellent arrangements, which it had made for its guests, and was highly impressed by its dedicated Secretary General Dr. Ahmad Muhammad Ali, who symbolized for him a model Muslim leader,” reported Islam4all.

The Islamic website reported Muhammad offered to work closely with the MWL and that he began an “ongoing interaction with the MWL in shaping and developing a vital Islamic presence within the U.S. Armed Forces.”

The website reported Muhammad “evinced keen interest in the magazines and other publications of the Muslim World League and other similar organizations for support in his Dawah (outreach) work.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/05/white-house-aide-linked-to-al-qaida-funder/#CpTG3Xj8XQFzGJyo.99

Obama Promoting Muslim Brotherhood “Stooge” Anne Patterson at State Department

If you haven’t had enough evidence that Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham need to be removed from office, along with their dance partner Barack Obama, this should be enough to convince you. United States Ambassador to Egypt Anne Patterson is now being considered as Obama’s pick for Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs.
anne-patterson-300x151
According to Walid Shoebat, “One day after the now infamous CBS 60 Minutes piece about Benghazi, Senator Lindsey Graham (RINO-SC) threatened to put a hold on Obama administration nominees until he was granted access to State Department survivors of the attack. Graham has now agreed to release holds on two of those nominees. If there is one nominee Graham shouldn’t let off the hook, it’s one he did – the U.S. Ambassador to Egypt who is accused of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood during her tenure there.”
Patterson most definitely was supporting the Muslim Brotherhood as we have documented at Freedom Outpost.
Foreign Policy reports:
Since October, the South Carolina Republican has vowed to block President Obama’s nominees from being confirmed by the Senate unless the administration makes more eyewitnesses of the September 2012 attack in Benghazi available to Congress. But a Graham spokesperson says her boss has made an exception for Anne Patterson, Obama’s pick for Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, and Gregory Starr, nominated to be Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security. Graham’s holds on all other administration nominees remain in place.
When asked if the State Department gave Graham anything in return for the lifted holds, the spokesperson said “no.” A State Department official concurred: “I don’t think there was anything — just acknowledgment of them as imp[ortant] posts.”
One must question why Ms. Patterson is being promoted.
Shoebat adds, “In August of this year, it was learned that Hisham Barakat, Egypt’s Attorney General, received multiple complaints that Muslim Brotherhood leaders were receiving bribes from the U.S. embassy in Cairo. A Qatari document which we published at the time seemed to bolster these claims as several Muslim Brotherhood leaders were identified as having received monthly “gifts” (bribes) in U.S. Dollars. As we wrote at the time, the names on the Qatari document match many of the names identified in the complaints filed with Barakat. As the U.S. Ambassador at the time, Patterson should have been made to answer questions. Instead, less than three months later, she’s up for a promotion and Graham is lifting his hold on her nomination.”
Earlier this year, Raymond Ibrahim reported that Patterson was part of a Muslim Brotherhood “sleeper cell” and vowed to apply pressure to support the Muslim Brotherhood while at the same time telling Coptic Christians to stop protesting against the Muslim Brotherhood.
What’s not surprising was the fact that both Senator McCain and Graham traveled to Egypt following Mohamed Morsi’s removal of power and called for the release of the Muslim Brotherhood leaders. Anyone else getting the picture for whose side these guys are on? And they have the nerve to talk to us about terrorism!
As we have reported here, there is most definitely an Egyptian connection to the attacks in Benghazi, involving Morsi.
While Graham is making a blowing a lot of hot air over Benghazi (something we need to get to the bottom of, but yes, I think that is all he is going to do), I think the real motivation for his song and dance with the holdup over Patterson is his loyalties and the fact that an election year is coming up; one that many of us in South Carolina cannot wait for so that we can remove him from his senate seat.
It seems that in America what we are lacking are true statesmen who are willing to be called names and endure the ridicule of being politically incorrect to oppose this administration’s radical pro-Muslim Brotherhood foreign policy. Fortunately, we do have a few, but only a few.

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/11/obama-promoting-muslim-brotherhood-stooge-anne-patterson-state-department/#ixzz2lBr0vwEP

EVIDENCE U.S. BRIBED MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD OFFICIALS

Document surfaces ahead of criminal trial of ousted leaders

by Jerome Corsi
money-list-brotherhoodOfficial Morsi government document: “Direction of Grants and Gifts for 2013,” submitted by Hamad bin Jasim bin Jabor Al Thani, former Qatari prime minister and foreign affairs minister
A question apparently being raised in next week’s trial in Cairo of Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood leaders facing criminal charges is this: Was the Obama administration paying bribes as large as $850,000 a year to the Morsi government that were distributed by top ministerial level officials to Muslim Brotherhood leaders, with the direct involvement of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo?

WND is in possession of an official document from inside the Morsi government that lends credibility to a report published in Arabic by an Egyptian newspaper in Cairo that lists the charges brought by the current military-controlled government against Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood leaders.

As seen above, WND has obtained official records from the deposed Morsi government in Egypt, with signatures, documenting monthly “gifts” paid to Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Egypt by the former prime minister and foreign minister of Qatar, Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabor Al Thani.

The document was seized from Egyptian government offices in Cairo when the Morsi government was deposed by the military July 3.

As translated by former PLO member and native Arabic-speaker Walid Shoebat, the monthly “gifts” listed in the document amount to bribes paid by the Morsi government to leading Muslim Brotherhood members in Egypt, including an annual payment of $750,000 to $850,000 in U.S. dollars.

Shoebat explained to WND the names listed on the Egyptian government document correspond to information the Egyptian newspaper Almesryoon has just published in Egypt reporting that the Cairo district attorney’s office has begun investigating alleged bribes the U.S. has paid through its embassy in Cairo to the Muslim Brotherhood.

According to the newspaper: “A judicial source stated that the Attorney General Hisham Barakat received during the past few days a number of filed complaints accusing the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood and leaders of the centrist party of receiving bribes thinly disguised as ‘gifts’ paid through the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.”

The sources of the complaint stated that among those receiving bribes paid in U.S. dollars from the U.S. include:

Mohamed Badie, general guide of the Muslim Brotherhood;
Khairat Al-Shater, deputy leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and businessman;
Mohamed Beltagy, the deputy head of the Freedom and Justice Party, the Muslim Brotherhood’s political party in Egypt, and the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood group, Essam el-Erian;
Abu Ela Mady, head of the Wasat Party; and
Essam Sultan, deputy head of the Wasat Party.
“What this document suggests,” Shoebot explained to WND, “is that the report the Egyptian newspaper Almesryoon published in Cairo may be correct in that it appears the U.S. government was paying monthly bribes in U.S. dollars, with payments as large as $85,000 a month, to top Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Egypt, with the money being passed from the United States through the U.S. Embassy in Cairo to the Morsi government.”

Shoebat stressed to WND that the signatures seen in the document mean it could be used as evidence in the upcoming trials of key Muslim Brotherhood leaders, slated to begin Aug. 25 in Cairo.

Shoebat also noted that the names listed in the document match the names in the Egyptian newspaper Almesryoon, including Mohamed Beltagy.

Reading closely the Almesryoon report, Shoebat concluded the document is likely to be among the evidence the current government of Egypt plans to introduce in its prosecution of the Muslim Brotherhood leaders.

The charges being brought in Cairo next week include not only bribes being taken in U.S. dollars from the U.S. Embassy, but also murders and assassinations, prison escapes, sniping at and the indiscriminate killing of demonstrators, and spying or being a double-agent collaborating with foreign governments, including both the U.S. and Qatar.

“The criminal charge being reported against the Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Cairo suggest these are major trials about to start,” Shoebat explained to WND.

“And with government documents entered into evidence, like the one WND is publishing, the criminal charges will likely be construed as capital offenses, with death by hanging the likely sentence.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/evidence-u-s-bribed-muslim-brotherhood-officials/#xEPDt9V4QBQ8PX59.99

Muslim Brotherhood Kills Its Own

MuslimBrotherhood12
New evidence indicates that some of the pro-Morsi protesters reportedly killed by the Egyptian military, after the Muslim Brotherhood president’s ouster, were actually killed by fellow pro-Morsi protesters. They did this, according to the report, to frame the military, incite more Islamist violence and unrest, and garner sympathy from America, which has been extremely critical of the military, especially in the context of the post-Morsi violence.

The Arabic satellite program, Al Dalil, (“The Evidence”) recently showed the evidence, which consisted mostly of video recordings.

One video records events on July 8, during pro-Morsi protests in front of the Republican Guard building in Cairo, where Morsi was being held, and where the bloodshed between the military and Brotherhood began. The video shows a young man with a shaven head and a Salafi-style beard approaching the Republican Guard barrier; he gets shot, collapses to the ground, and dies—as other protesters fly into a rage against the military. As the video plays, it seems clear that the military shot him.

However, watching the video in slow motion and in zoom clearly indicates that someone from behind him, from the pro-Morsi throng, shot him. The whole time he falls, in slow motion, he is still facing the Republican Guard. Yet when the camera zooms in, the bullet wound and blood are visibly at the back of his head; his front, facing the military even after he falls, does not appear to have a scratch. Considering that the military was facing him, it seems apparent that a fellow Morsi-supporter shot him from behind.

On the same day this man in the video and others were killed, Muhammad Mahsoub, a former Brotherhood member and politician tweeted the following: “The Brotherhood sacrifice their youth in the streets, even as the sons of their leaders are at the beach resorts… Allah curse the hypocrites [based on a Koran verse];” and “I repeatedly warned al-Baltagi against his plan to antagonize the military in order to implicate it an attack on the protesters, but he insists on his plan…”

Baltagi is a Brotherhood leader who has been especially vocal about “getting back” at the military; he apparently also enjoys close relations with the widely disliked U.S. ambassador to Egypt, Anne Patterson.

Another video shown on Al Dalil is even more obvious. An armored vehicle appears slowly driving by a group of pro-Morsi protesters, many easily discernible with their Salafi-style beards. A shot is heard and the man nearest the passing vehicle collapses. Again, at first, it appears that the men in the armored vehicle shot the man.

Played again in slow motion, however, it becomes apparent that the man in a gilbab (long Muslim style robe) standing directly behind the murdered man is actually the one who shot him; he then walked over to another man near him, gave him the weapon, and then quickly walked off the scene. Even the man on the roof who is taping this scene is heard to be asked, “Did the car [armored vehicle] shoot?” only to reply, “No, no.”

Even so, the desired effect of all these “human sacrifices” by the Brotherhood was accomplished: as with the other man, shot in front of the Republican Guard, many other pro-Morsi protesters rushed to the fallen man, screaming Islamic slogans and vowing relentless war on the military, as it supposedly “shot first.”

This second incident prompted the Freedom and Justice Party, the Muslim Brotherhood’s political arm, to call for “an uprising by the great people of Egypt against those trying to steal their revolution with tanks.”

To many Islamists, killing an ally to empower Islam is legitimate, especially in the context of two Islamic ideas: 1) jihad [war in the service of Islam], which in Islamic jurisprudence is considered the “pinnacle” of Islam—for its very function, from day one under Muhammad, is to make Islam supreme; and 2) Islam’s overarching juridical idea that “necessity makes the prohibited permissible,” which means that laudable ends, for example empowering Islam, justify the use of forbidden means. All that matters is one’s intention, or niyya.

Thus, because making Islam supreme is the greatest priority, anything and everything that is otherwise banned—killing fellow Muslims, lying, prostitution, even sodomy—becomes permissible, so long as it is seen as a way to advance and empower Islam.

Based on their intention of empowering Islam, those who commit or promote even the most horrific crimes are exonerated, while those “sacrificed” to empower Islam—such as those pro-Morsi supporters killed by the Brotherhood—are deemed martyrs, who will achieve the highest level of paradise. From an Islamist point of view, it’s a win-win situation.

A Defeat for the Muslim Brotherhood, a Model for Winning

MuslimBrotherhoodThe Muslim Brotherhood was handed a tactical defeat on June 4, 2013 in Manchester, TN. The FBI and DOJ (Department of Justice) appeared at a meeting called by AMAC (American Muslim Advisory Council — Muslim Brotherhood) in Manchester, TN. It was to include a talk by a US Assistant Attorney General and an FBI agent in charge. The meeting was due to a joke posted by a Coffee County Commissioner on Face Book. The DOJ Assistant Attorney General Killian said in a newspaper interview that the joke might be in the category of a hate crime.

Over 1200 people came from all over the US to a meeting in a town of 10,000. The web had buzzed about free speech in Manchester and talk radio chimed in.

In the course of the presentation by Killian, several in the audience began to shout our retorts to him. At first some in audience tried to shush them, but the momentum began to build and the shouted challenges increased in numbers and volume. It should be noted that the shouts were factual and knowledgeable. An example: when it was mentioned how hard it was to be a Muslim refugee: “Free medical care, welfare and scholarships tough to take?” When Killian said that DOJ protected voter rights, the shouts were to the tune of: “You mean like protecting the Panthers in Philadelphia?”

There were also knowledgeable shouts about Islam: “We don’t care about the religion, it’s the politics. No Sharia.”

When Killian mentioned Eric Holder, the room erupted with thunderous boos. People were angry about the Feds. The FBI agent presented a better face, but he got blow back as well. Chants of “Ruby Ridge” and “Waco” rang out. This was a “mad as hell and not going to take it anymore” attitude.

There has been both praise and condemnation of the crowd. But to understand it, you had to be there. There was a palpable pent up anger about a long string of corruption out of the Obama White House: the IRS scandals; Major Nidal Hassan’s jihad called “work place violence”; vacuuming up everybody’s phone records; and more. They felt that the Feds were here to talk down to them, not to answer questions.

The Feds came to talk down to them since they are considered rednecks. Those rural white people who are not politically correct are called rednecks. Rednecks are the only under-class who have no protection or advocacy. They are the only group that can be mocked, ridiculed and made the butt of jokes. The worst of the ghetto blacks are forbidden to be called the equivalent of redneck, the N word. There is no RN word. Nope, they are rednecks, trailer trash, crackers, white trash and worse.

Another measure of society’s hatred of rednecks it this: if the shouters in the audience had been black, the media would have said that they were: “Speaking truth to power”. They would be reported as victims against oppression and fighters for social justice. But rednecks are called bigots and ignorant haters.

Why did the rednecks have to come and oppose political Islam? Simple, our leaders will not do the job.

The leaders in the pulpits of America are professionally ignorant cowards. Ministers and rabbis go to Family of Abraham events with Muslims and tip toe around any criticism. They cry over the Crusades and believe whatever they are told by Muslims. Over 100,000 Christians were murdered last year and there is an ongoing jihad against Israel, but not a word will be spoken to the Muslims about the Islamic crimes. Tears will be shed over graffiti on a mosque, but not one mention of Christians being machine gunned at Christmas services in Egypt.

What university has ever held an event where the jihad doctrine of Islam is discussed? Critical thought and fact-based reasoning are not allowed in their forums and curricula. The history of the deaths of 270 million Kafirs has no place in history departments. Sharia cruelty is not taught in feminist studies. No word about Islam may be spoken without approval from the MSA (Muslim Students Association, a Muslim Brotherhood front.)

Will law enforcement and the military protect us against political Islam? They do not even recognize the existence of an Islamic threat doctrine. All information about Islam in terrorism training must be approved by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Will the media protect our civilization in a civilizational jihad? Not just no, but hell no! The media is Islam’s mouthpiece and a savage opponent of everyone who opposes Sharia law.
What about American business? Islamic business fuels civilizational war with unlimited funds, just as the Koran commands. As an 11 year veteran counter-jihadist, I am unaware of American business support for the counter-jihadists. There may be small donations, but no systemic funding. Muslims get billions, and our fighters get a thousand. How will that work out?

Well, if the preachers, rabbis, professors, reporters, military, politicians, law enforcement and business are absent in a civilizational war, who shows up? Isolated warriors such as Spencer, Geller, Bostom, and others are the front line fighters. Oh, and Tennessee rednecks.

The Tea Party types and conservatives say that we should always be polite. My personal experience is that I have presented talks about political Islam that are very civil and polite for years. It doesn’t make any difference. I am still called a bigot, hater, Islamophobe, racist and merchant of hate. I have been told by community leaders that it is people like me that stir up the terror. They say I am an unpleasant man who frightens people. The Southern Poverty Law Center says that I am one of America’s top 10 bigots. “Doing it right” is judged to be immoral. Being nicer may not be the way to win a civilizational war.

Our society has become so wimpy and politically correct that there is no longer any righteous anger. We have become a nation of pleasant liars who are never angered at society’s outrages. We are ever so polite to those who destroy our civilization. We are a nation of zombies, but polite zombies. There have been over 20,000 jihad attacks since September 11, 2001, but you don’t want to mention that since someone might become uncomfortable or be offended.

For years we have watched as Muslims and dhimmis (apologists) have put on a multicultural love fest with Islam. In every case Islam has dominated. This was the first time in 11 years that the Kafirs dominated the information battle space in Tennessee — the first time.

How do we dominate the information battle space without shouting? Analyze what went right at Manchester. Here is what we and the rednecks did right:

• We showed up. Now is in this case we had 1500 show up, but we cannot use massive attendance as a usual tactic. However, a normal AMAC event would have put out chairs for a 100 people. We don’t need but a dozen people to dominate the meeting with information.
• We knew the doctrine of political Islam. We knew when people were lying or telling a half-truth.
• We knew the event was happening. We had intelligence and knew who the players were.
• We opposed the lies by voice, leaflet and signs. This is what rednecks bring to the party—rednecks are not politically correct and speak their minds. (That is part of the reason that they are hated.) They don’t give a hoot what the media/government/church types think. This spirit must be carried into every meeting. We must speak up and speak out. This is hard for those who are ruled by being “nice”.

We must learn how to co-opt the events without shouting. We must be organized and show up at every public event where Muslims come together with their ignorant dhimmi (apologist) partners. All of these events should become information battles. We should show up with signs and leaflets. If they will not allow signs, then bring cloth banners which can be put into bags and backpacks. We must do these things politely, but with authority like a warrior. And forget about the question and answer session for scoring points – the Q and A is always: write down your questions and we will select the ones we want to answer.

We must invite the Muslim Brotherhood and all of their supporters, such as government agencies and ministers, to our own events to explain their position to us, not in their power position of speaking down to us, but in a round table event centered on fact based reasoning.

The Manchester event was a rough hewn victory. We must learn lessons from it and then show up for every battle against this civilizational jihad.

Obama’s Big Muslim Brotherhood Bet

by Daniel Greenfield

In the spring of 2009, Obama went down to Cairo. He skipped the gaming tables at the Omar Khayyam Casino at the Cairo Marriott and instead went over to the Islamist baccarat tables at Cairo University and bet big on the Muslim Brotherhood.

Obama had insisted on Muslim Brotherhood attendance at a speech that was part apology and part abandonment. The apology was for American power and the abandonment was of American allies.

The text of the speech was largely inconsequential in the same way that most of the words that scroll across the teleprompters of politicians are. In politics, the speech is often the medium while the timing, the audience and the location are the message. And the message was that the Brotherhood’s hour had come.

Obama was following through on an idea that had long been an article of faith on the left. The idea was that the United States had invested in a defunct status quo and that our biggest problems were our allies. The only way out was to toss them all overboard.

Generations of diplomats had griped from their walled compounds in Riyadh, Kuwait City or Doha that many of our problems in the region would go away if Israel somehow went away. But this was bigger. It involved dumping every single allied government in the region to start fresh with new governments elected through popular democracy and enjoying popular support. It would be a new beginning. And a new beginning was also the title of the Cairo speech.

The idea wasn’t new, but it was right up there with proposals to unilaterally abandon our nuclear arsenal or dedicate ten percent of the budget to foreign aid; ideas that a lot of diplomats liked, but that they knew no one would ever be crazy enough to pull the trigger on.

And then Obama tried to pull the trigger on two out of three. What he wanted was for the Brotherhood to win so that it could make the War on Terror irrelevant.

As much as the advocates of smart and soft power insisted that Islamic terrorism had nothing to do with Islam, they knew better. They knew that Al Qaeda wanted to create Islamic states that would form into a Caliphate. Central to its thinking was that it would have to fight to create these states. But what if the Caliphate could be created without a war?

To make it happen, all America had to do was surrender the Middle East.

The attacks of September 11 had created a serious crisis for liberal policymakers. Unlike the bombing of the World Trade Center on Clinton’s watch, these attacks could not be ignored or swept under the rug. But neither could liberals accept a clash of civilizations that would destroy their multicultural society or an extended series of international police actions that would militarize the country.

The logic that led from September 11 to the Cairo speech to Benghazi was impeccable. It combined the clean sweep theory with grand scale appeasement.

“Islamic terrorists are carrying out attacks because they want their countries to be ruled by Islam. Why not help them to do it?”

The United States withdrew support from its allies. It apologized, surrendered and waited for the takeovers to begin. When the dictators wouldn’t step aside voluntarily, the bombers were sent in.

The grand bargain with the Muslim Brotherhood was supposed to end the War on Terror by trading the Muslim Brotherhood’s brand of political Islamism for Al Qaeda’s campaign of terror. It was as if FDR had struck a deal with the Bolsheviks to get rid of the Trotskyites (and indeed such a bargain did operate briefly during WW2).

Obama’s grand bargain came to a squalid end on September 11. In Benghazi, the Muslim Brotherhood militia that was supposed to protect the mission instead sold it out and abandoned it.

The Brotherhood would accept American support, but it wouldn’t stop terrorist attacks against America. Its front groups in America would not cooperate with the FBI, its governments and militias in the Middle East would not protect American diplomatic facilities.

On September 11, the American embassy in Cairo was besieged by protesters with the support of the Muslim Brotherhood. In Tunis, the new Islamist government turned its back on the embassy, forcing Hillary Clinton to plead with President Marzouki to send out his own presidential guard to defend it.

In Benghazi and Cairo, Al Qaeda attacked while the Brotherhood played dumb. In Syria, Brotherhood and Al Qaeda militias worked together, while Brotherhood spokesmen insisted that they were the only secular alternative. In the United States, Al Qaeda terrorists carried out their “lone wolf” attacks while the Brotherhood front groups which ran most of the Islamic organizations in America claimed not to know what was going on.

Egypt Muslim Brotherhood presidential candidate Mohamed MorsieThe Muslim Brotherhood’s victories did not make Al Qaeda go away. Instead the two found common ground while playing a game of Good Terrorist and Bad Terrorist. Or as the mainstream media calls it, Moderates and Extremists.

Obama had stacked all of our allies in the Middle East that didn’t have enough oil to matter and bet them at the Brotherhood’s casino on a single spin of the wheel. And the Brotherhood took it all.

But Obama is still at the casino stacking up more chips. The next round of the game moves to Syria. Instead of the Brotherhood using its new power to protect the United States, the United States is expected to get involved in another Iraq in order to help the Brotherhood take over Syria to complete the Islamist triumphs of the Arab Spring.

The United States has become a tool of Muslim Brotherhood expansionism. Obama helped the Brotherhood overthrow governments by political means, but now the Brotherhood is demanding military intervention to help a Brotherhood/Al Qaeda coalition take over Syria. And if Obama goes along with it, he will have turned the United States military into the mercenaries of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The root cause of terrorism is not American foreign policy, but Muslim foreign policy. Appeasement turns American foreign policy into an arm of Islamic expansionism.

Americans have died because of Obama’s dirty deal with the Muslim Brotherhood. The question now is whether Obama will send American soldiers and pilots to die for the Brotherhood.

Washington’s Secret History with the Muslim Brotherhood

Please note the date of this article. I am posting it to shed light on the fact that the United States foreign policy of courting the Muslim Brotherhood goes back as far as the Eisenhower administration in the 1950′s. The attitude that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” does not help you if that enemy plans to conquer you in the end! This demonstrates a profound ignorance of the ideology of Muslim Brotherhood. Dupes then, dupes now. Even this author, Ian Johnson, seems to think the Muslim Brotherhood can be trusted to be moderate! Why is nobody taking the Muslim Brotherhood Memorandum of Understanding or The Project seriously?

By Ian Johnson Feb. 5, 2011 at NYR blog:

As US-backed strongmen around North Africa and the Middle East are being toppled or shaken by popular protests, Washington is grappling with a crucial foreign-policy issue: how to deal with the powerful but opaque Muslim Brotherhood. In Egypt, the Brotherhood has taken an increasingly forceful part in the protests, issuing a statement Thursday calling for Mubarak’s immediate resignation. And though it is far from clear what role the Brotherhood would have should Mubarak step down, the Egyptian president has been claiming it will take over. In any case, the movement is likely to be a major player in any transitional government.

Journalists and pundits are already weighing in with advice on the strengths and dangers of this 83-year-old Islamist movement, whose various national branches are the most potent opposition force in virtually all of these countries. Some wonder how the Brotherhood will treat Israel, or if it really has renounced violence. Most—including the Obama administration —seem to think that it is a movement the West can do business with, even if the White House denies formal contacts.

If this discussion evokes a sense of déjà vu, this is because over the past sixty years we have had it many times before, with almost identical outcomes. Since the 1950s, the United States has secretly struck up alliances with the Brotherhood or its offshoots on issues as diverse as fighting communism and calming tensions among European Muslims. And if we look to history, we can see a familiar pattern: each time, US leaders have decided that the Brotherhood could be useful and tried to bend it to America’s goals, and each time, maybe not surprisingly, the only party that clearly has benefited has been the Brotherhood.

How can Americans be unaware of this history? Credit a mixture of wishful thinking and a national obsession with secrecy, which has shrouded the US government’s extensive dealings with the Brotherhood.

Consider President Eisenhower. In 1953, the year before the Brotherhood was outlawed by Nasser, a covert US propaganda program headed by the US Information Agency brought over three dozen Islamic scholars and civic leaders mostly from Muslim countries for what officially was an academic conference at Princeton University. The real reason behind the meeting was an effort to impress the visitors with America’s spiritual and moral strength, since it was thought that they could influence Muslims’ popular opinion better than their ossified rulers. The ultimate goal was to promote an anti-Communist agenda in these newly independent countries, many of which had Muslim majorities.

One of the leaders, according to Eisenhower’s appointment book, was “The Honorable Saeed Ramahdan, Delegate of the Muslim Brothers.”* The person in question (in more standard romanization, Said Ramadan), was the son-in-law of the Brotherhood’s founder and at the time widely described as the group’s “foreign minister.” (He was also the father of the controversial Swiss scholar of Islam, Tariq Ramadan.)

Eisenhower officials knew what they were doing. In the battle against communism, they figured that religion was a force that US could make use of—the Soviet Union was atheist, while the United States supported religious freedom. Central Intelligence Agency analyses of Said Ramadan were quite blunt, calling him a “Phalangist” and a “fascist interested in the grouping of individuals for power.” But the White House went ahead and invited him anyway.
dwight-d-eisenhower-in-the-oval-office-with-a-group-of-muslim-delegates-1953-said-ramadan-is-second-from-the-right

President Dwight D. Eisenhower in the Oval Office with a group of Muslim delegates, 1953. Said Ramadan is second from the right.

By the end of the decade, the CIA was overtly backing Ramadan. While it’s too simple to call him a US agent, in the 1950s and 1960s the United States supported him as he took over a mosque in Munich, kicking out local Muslims to build what would become one of the Brotherhood’s most important centers—a refuge for the beleaguered group during its decades in the wilderness. In the end, the US didn’t reap much for its efforts, as Ramadan was more interested in spreading his Islamist agenda than fighting communism. In later years, he supported the Iranian revolution and likely aided the flight of a pro-Teheran activist who murdered one of the Shah’s diplomats in Washington.

Cooperation ebbed and flowed. During the Vietnam War, US attention was focused elsewhere but with the start of the Soviet war in Afghanistan, interest in cultivating Islamists picked up again. That period of backing the mujahedeen— some of whom morphed into al-Qaeda—is well-known, but Washington continued to flirt with Islamists, and especially the Brotherhood.

In the years after the September 11 attacks, the United States initially went after the Brotherhood, declaring many of its key members to be backers of terrorism. But by Bush’s second term, the US was losing two wars in the Muslim world and facing hostile Muslim minorities in Germany, France, and other European countries, where the Brotherhood had established an influential presence. The US quietly changed its position.

The Bush administration devised a strategy to establish close relations with Muslim groups in Europe that were ideologically close to the Brotherhood, figuring that it could be an interlocutor in dealing with more radical groups, such as the home-grown extremists in Paris, London and Hamburg. And, as in the 1950s, government officials wanted to project an image to the Muslim world that Washington was close to western-based Islamists. So starting in 2005, the State Department launched an effort to woo the Brotherhood. In 2006, for example, it organized a conference in Brussels between these European Muslim Brothers and American Muslims, such as the Islamic Society of North America, who are considered close to the Brotherhood. All of this was backed by CIA analyses, with one from 2006 saying the Brotherhood featured “impressive internal dynamism, organization, and media savvy.” Despite the concerns of western allies that supporting the Brotherhood in Europe was too risky, the CIA pushed for cooperation. As for the Obama administration, it carried over some of the people on the Bush team who had helped devise this strategy.

Why the enduring interest in the Brotherhood? Since its founding in 1928 by the Egyptian schoolteacher and imam Hassan al-Banna, the Brotherhood has managed to voice the aspirations of the Muslim world’s downtrodden and often confused middle class. It explained their backwardness in an interesting mixture of fundamentalism and fascism (or reactionary politics and xenophobia): today’s Muslims aren’t good enough Muslims and must return to the true spirit of the Koran. Foreigners, especially Jews, are part of a vast conspiracy to oppress Muslims. This message was—and still is—delivered through a modern, political party-like structure, that includes women’s groups, youth clubs, publications and electronic media, and, at times, paramilitary wings. It has also given birth to many of the more violent strains of radical Islamism, from Hamas to al-Qaeda, although many of such groups now find the Brotherhood too conventional. Little wonder that the Brotherhood, for all its troubling aspects, is interesting to western policy makers eager to gain influence in this strategic part of the world.

But the Brotherhood has been a tricky partner. In countries where it aspires to join the political mainstream, it renounces the use of violence locally. Hence the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt says it no longer seeks to overthrow the regime violently—although its members there think nothing of calling for Israel’s destruction. In Egypt, the Brotherhood also says it wants religious courts to enforce shariah, but at times has also said that secular courts could have final say. This isn’t to suggest that its moderation is just for show, but it’s fair to say that the Brotherhood has only partially embraced the values of democracy and pluralism.

sheikh-yusuf-al-qardawi
Sheikh Yusuf al-Qardawi

The group’s most powerful cleric, the Qatar-based Youssef Qaradawi, epitomizes this bifurcated worldview. He says women should be allowed to work and that in some countries, Muslims may hold mortgages (which are based on interest, a taboo for fundamentalists). But Qaradawi advocates the stoning of homosexuals and the murder of Israeli children—because they will grow up and could serve as soldiers.

Qaradawi is hardly an outlier. In past years, he has often been mentioned as a candidate to be the Egyptian branch’s top leader. He is very likely the most influential cleric in the Muslim world—on Friday, for example, thousands of Egyptian protesters in Tahrir Square listened to a broadcast of his sermon. He has also declared those demonstrators who have died defying the government to be martyrs.

That is an indication of the Brotherhood’s growing influence in the wave of protests around the region. In Egypt, the Brotherhood, after a slow start, has become a key player in the anti-government coalition; on Thursday, the new vice president, Omar Suleiman, invited the Brotherhood for talks. In Jordan, where the group is legal, King Abdullah met with the Brotherhood for the first time in a decade. And in Tunis, the Islamist opposition leader Rachid Ghanouchi, who has been a pillar of the Brotherhood’s European network, recently returned home from his London exile.

All of this points to the biggest difference between then and now. Half a century ago, the West chose to make use of the Brotherhood for short-term tactical gain, later backing many of the authoritarian governments that were also trying to wipe out the group. Now, with those governments tottering, the West has little choice; after decades of oppression, it is the Brotherhood, with its mixture of age-old fundamentalism and modern political methods, that is left standing.

* The appointment book and details of Ramadan’s visit are in the Eisenhower presidential archives in Abilene, Kansas. See my book A Mosque in Munich, pp. 116-119, for details of the visit. On the use of the Brotherhood post-9/11, see pp 222-228.

Egypt’s ‘Democracy’ Deteriorating Daily as Bodies Hung in Bus Station

Egypt vigilante
The “Arab Spring” that was intended to be one of the shining jewels in the Obama Administration’s treasury of accomplishments continues to decay.
It never was what President Obama and his minions portrayed it as anyway. Far from being the birth of a widespread democracy movement amid medieval Muslim dictatorships, it rapidly became obvious to most of the world that the “Arab Spring” was about installing the Muslim Brotherhood and its kindred radical Islamists in the halls of power.
The September 11 attack in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead was just one symptom of the disease that spread through the Muslim world with the “Arab Spring.” The Administration had used its influence and military resources in fighting a short but illegal war against strongman Moammar Gadhaffi.
Obama never went before Congress to even inform them of what the U.S. was doing in the region, much less to ask for a declaration of war. His duplicity came back to bite him in Benghazi when local al-Qaida-linked militia members who had helped remove Gadhaffi turned around and used U.S.-supplied arms to attack the U.S. mission, which was not an embassy but a weapons-smuggling operation run by the CIA to arm “rebels” in Syria.
Syria is shaping up to be another disaster for this Administration as the so-called civil war drags on due to the involvement of the U.S. and Russia on opposite sides. Now there are rumblings that the “rebels,” many of whom are from those same al-Qaida-linked groups we’ve been fighting for more than a decade, want to turn south and attack Israel, our putative ally.
The other poster child for Obama’s “democracy” movement is Egypt, which elected the Muslim Brotherhood candidate to the country’s presidency and which has descended further into darkness ever since.

Mass violence never really stopped in Egypt. It was just directed toward Christians and Jews, who have been intimidated, arrested, beaten, raped and killed as Muslims have gone on sporadic rampages of looting, burning and destroying homes, synagogues and churches.
The mob violence continues to grow worse as the country is overcome by the spirit of depravity. On Sunday, in a crowded bus station an hour’s drive outside of Cairo, an angry mob lynched two men and hung their bodies upside down for all to see.
The photos are grisly and clearly show the two bloody bodies above a bus station platform overflowing with a throng of angry people. The men were stripped and clearly beaten severely.
According to security officials, a crowd of about 3,000 shouted “Kill them! Kill them!” as the leaders of the lynching and dozens of other people murdered the two men, who had been accused of stealing a rickshaw.
Egyptian Justice Minister Ahmed Mekky has condemned the growing lawlessness in his country. “The meting out of rough justice on thugs and outlaws,” Mekky said, “as well as blocking roads and highways by citizens, are signs of the state’s death. … The government that allows this to happen is an unjust government, because it does not afford citizens with adequate protection.”
If Egypt is an unjust government by its justice minister’s own admission, what does that make the United States, which sends military aide and fighter jets to Egypt?
Maybe if the media could lay off questions about Obama’s golf game or popularity polls, they could ask him.

Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/9945/egypts-democracy-deteriorating-daily-as-bodies-hung-in-bus-station/#ixzz2PUpDryfO

MUSLIMBrotherhood group to 'connect all U.S. schools'

SEO Powered By SEOPressor