Tag Archives: Al Qaeda

Forcing our all-volunteer force to fail

August 10, 2012Adm. James "Ace" Lyons (Ret.)

Concerns raised by Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and four of her colleagues on the proper vetting of Huma Abedin, the deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, provoke larger questions about Muslim Brotherhood penetration and influence in our government agencies, particularly the Department of Defense (DOD). Recently, we witnessedPentagon Islamic adviser Louay Safi’s reappearance as the political head of the Syrian National Council, a Muslim Brotherhood-dominated group. Among his many other activities, he is also the director of leadership development for the Islamic Society of North America(ISNA), which is the largest Muslim Brotherhood group in the United States.

The president of ISNA, Imam Mohamed Magid serves as a member of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Countering Violent Extremism Working Group. He is a close adviser to the National Security Council as well as to President Obama. He continues to have access to not only the State and Treasury departments but has been used frequently by DOD to formulate responses to incidents that Islamists consider offensive. How comforting. Let’s not forget that the ISNA is an unindicated co-conspirator in theHoly Land Foundation trial in 2008 for providing funding to the terrorist group Hamas.

An open question is what role Imam Magid played in influencing DHS to cancel a conference on homegrown radical extremism at CIA headquarters in August 2011. We know that the Council on Islamic Relations (CAIR) demanded that the training conference featuring a presentation by Stephen Coughlin, among others, be canceled. It should be recalled that CAIR is also an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial.CAIR was also successful in getting West Point’s chaplain to cancel a prayer breakfast in early February by Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin, a West Point graduate and former deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence, because of his views on Islam. So much for the First Amendment.

Based on his position at the ISNA, Mr. Safi has been designated as only one of two “ecclesiastical agents” to act as unpaid consultants to DOD for selecting Muslim chaplains. It should be remembered that Abdurahman Alamoudi, as a result of his close connections to the Clinton White House, had the lead role in establishing the Muslim chaplain programs. He not only nominated but approved which Muslims could serve as chaplains in the U.S. military. For the record, Mr. Alamoudi currently is serving a 23-year sentence in federal prison for his conviction on terrorism-related charges and was proved to be a senior al Qaeda financier as well as a strong supporter of the terrorist groups Hezbollah and Hamas.

Mr. Safi has cast a wide net in DOD. He was also responsible for teaching Islam to U.S. Army military personnel at various bases, including Fort Hood, so that they would be more sensitive to Islamic customs and traditions. This sensitivity training is all done under the guise of our counter-insurgency (COIN) strategy to win the hearts and minds of Muslims first in Iraq and now in Afghanistan. Actually, what’s important in the Middle East is “street respect.” Once it is established, hearts and minds will follow.

As part of his credentials, Mr. Safi was also named “unindicated co-conspirator No. 4” in the trial of Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) leader Sami Al-Arian. Nonetheless, he continues to have access to both DOD and the FBI.

On Oct. 19, 2011, a letter signed by an array of Muslim groups, including CAIR and ISNA, both Muslim Brotherhood organizations, was sent to Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan complaining about the government’s use of biased, false and highly offensive training materials about Muslims and Islam. Much of the material utilized by U.S. trainers that the groups complained about was extracted from the Koran and Shariah law.

They demanded that all training material be purged of “biased materials.” Furthermore, they demanded that personnel reviews be conducted on all trainers and government employees who promoted biased training and materials and that they be “properly disciplined.” Their audacity has no limits.

Yes, our trainers are biased. They took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. This is their bias, one that every American should be proud to support. Instead of vetting our trainers and training materials used for countering violent extremism, the Muslim Brotherhood front organizations that signed the Oct. 19 letter as well as a Wired magazine article used as a primary reference to justify the complaints, should be vetted and their agenda exposed. Their objectives are clear: To silence those Americans who understand the threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood and its strategy to impose Shariah in place of our Constitution using our “own miserable hands.”

Another important question: How much influence have these Muslim outreach advisers had in the development of the restricted rules of engagement under which our military is required to fight? In Afghanistan, they must observe rules of engagement that betray their intentions to the locals and then are restricted on use of their weapons, putting their lives in jeopardy.

Our troops are well aware that many Afghan army units, trained with our tax dollars, are negotiating unofficial truces with the Taliban. Complicating this unacceptable situation is the endemic corruption throughout the country.

Our military knows that Afghanistan, with a 90 percent illiteracy rate, will always be a failed state. After 10 years, we should recognize that our COIN strategy has not worked. A few more construction projects and Afghan army units will not turn the tide. We should stop sacrificing American military lives and money, particularly with the draconian budget cuts being forced on our military. If we are to keep faith with our all-volunteer force, a change in direction must be taken now.

Retired Adm. James A. Lyons was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and seniorU.S. military representative to the United Nations.

This article originally appeared in the Washington Times:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/8/forcing-our-all-volunteer-force-to-fail/.

The Atlantic Whitewashes Islamist Groups in Abedin Controversy

August 2, 2012David Reaboi

After a week of evidence coming to light about the connections of Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Chief-of-Staff Huma Abedin to Islamist groups, the Muslim Brotherhood and internationally-designated terrorist enities, the response from the left is ridicule, misrepresentation, caricature and—on the most damning evidence—utter silence.

A cartoonish chart prepared by The Atlantic’s Serena Dai includes jaw-dropping distortions of Islamist groups—several being officially-designated terrorist groups—to make Abedin’s family and personal connections with them seem benign.

The blue dots populating “Alleged Connection between Huma Abedin, Muslim Brotherhood, and other things that are bad” are laughably incomplete. In her effort to paint these multiple and serious affiliations as a comical six degrees of separation to the Muslim Brotherhood (and provide talking points to that effect to others in the left media), Dai whitewashes the fact that most of the organizations listed can reasonably be considered Brotherhood fronts, or, at minimum, heavily populated by Muslim Brothers or ideological Islamist fellow travelers.

The controversy surrounding Huma Abedin—and, importantly, the extent to which her connections to Islamist groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood, alarmingly seemed not to factor into a background check—arise from letters to Inspector Generals of five departments written by a group of Congressmen Newt Gingrich recently dubbed the “National Security Five.” Examining these connections are crucial in light of the advice the Deputy Chief-of-Staff is giving to her boss, the Secretary of State, at a time when Islamist groups openly declaring jihad against America are being rewarded by the Obama administration with legitimacy in the political process.

Most egregiously, Dai’s chart omits the closest connection Abedin has to Islamist groups and individuals: she was, herself, an assistant editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs for seven years along with terrorism financier Abdullah Omar Naseef. The Journal and the Institute for which her father also worked, was the brainchild of Naseef, who found time to found the Rabita Trust (banned by US Treasury just after 9/11) and serve as secretary general to the Muslim World League (MWL), a group founded by the trusted deputy and son-in-law of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood and, reportedly, one of al Qaeda’s prime sources of funding. When looking for a head of the Rabita Trust, Naseef turned to Wael Hamza Jalidan, who had, by then, been an associate of Osama Bin Laden in al Qaeda.

In other words, many of the people and groups with whom a man like Naseef surrounds himself (at minimum) tend to be what you’d call “problematic,” and a locus of these links should (again, at the very minimum) give a background investigator pause—or, more sensibly, ring the alarm bells—if he finds not one but several links to Naseef or people like him.

For example, Huma Abedin is linked to Naseef in several ways: (1) herself, through her employment at an organization Naseef founded and chaired, the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs; (2) through her mother, who was also employed by Naseef’s IMMA; (3) through her late father, who served with Naseef as part of the Muslim World League; and finally (4) through her brother, a fellow at the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies, a group which includes Naseef as a board member. That’s a cluster of associations with merely one man, and that one man is a terror funder.

But let’s pause for a moment. These links are not “guilt by association”—a term the left has wrung of any meaning, transformed into an all-purpose self-satisfied comeback. As Andy McCarthy explains:

A person is not required to have done anything wrong to be denied a high-ranking government position, or more immediately, the security clearance allowing access to classified information that is necessary to function in such a job. There simply need be associations, allegiances, or interests that establish a potential conflict of interest… Government jobs and access to the nation’s secrets are privileges, not rights. That is why the potential conflict needn’t stem from one’s own associations with hostile foreign countries, organizations, or persons. Vicarious associations, such as one’s parents’ connections to troublesome persons and organizations, are sufficient to create a potential conflict.

In an effort to caricature the exhaustive research done by Walid Shoebat, Andy McCarthy, the Center for Security Policy, and others, the Atlantic proceeds to whitewash and downplay as uncontroversial the individuals and groups that the Abedin family is deeply connected with. A sampling:

Dai’s description for the group Abedin’s mother founded, the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child (IICWC), is cynically deceptive: “Its website states a goal of defending women’s rights.” In Arabic, its website also recommends repeal of laws forbidding female genital mutilation, child marriage, and marital rape. For justification of these barbaric positions clearly in conflict with the mandate of “protecting women’s rights,” IICWC turns to Yusuf al-Qaradawi—the infamous Hitler-praising cleric who is considered to be the Muslim Brotherhood’s chief jurist. Oh, and according to the IICWC’s own website (again, in Arabic), Qaradawi was also the author of the group’s charter.

In addition, the Atlantic omits references to Women in Islam, the book Saleha Abedin and her IICWC published, translated into English and distributed through the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA), the organization with which Huma Abedin herself was employed. Excerpts of the book were published by the Center for Security Policy, including a chapter arguing for women’s participation in armed jihad, stoning or lashing for adultery, curtailing free expression based on what would benefit Islam, and more. To establish these positions—again, as far from a western notion of human rights as you can get—the book relies on extensive citations from opinions of Muslim Brotherhood figures like Qaradawi and Sayiid Qutb, the ideological inspiration for nearly every modern jihadist group, including al Qaeda.

Moving on, there’s the International Islamic Council for Da’wah and Relief (IICDR), which Dai refers to as a group that merely “connects various Islamic organizations.” You could say that. You could also say it was banned in Israel for funding Hamas as part of a scheme by the very same Qaradawi and his Union For Good. Saleha Abedin attended IICDR’s board meetings, and their own websites and publications acknowledge the linkage.

On to the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), which Dia euphemistically says, “helps the social development of Muslim youth.” As Andrew McCarthy—who has published invaluable information on Abedin’s connections and putting them into context, recounts:

Its principal role is the indoctrination of young Muslims in supremacist ideology. As outlined in one of its pamphlets, Islamic Views, it aims to “teach our children to love taking revenge on the Jews and the oppressors, and teach them that our youngsters will liberate Palestine and al-Quds [i.e., Jerusalem] when they go back to Islam and make Jihad for the sake of Allah.” As Matthew Levitt extensively details in Hamas: Politics, Charity and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad, WAMY has been a financial supporter of Hamas and al-Qaeda.

“An Islamic organization aiming to further the religion” is how Dai gingerly describes WAMY’s parent organization, the aforementioned World Muslim League (WML). Ian Johnson’s bestselling investigative book on the Muslim Brotherhood in the west, Mosque in Munich, details the development of the WML as an innovation of the Brotherhood at the highest levels, led by Said Ramadan.

And on and on.

This episode illustrates the extent to which the left is determined to downplay the explicit danger of well-funded Islamist groups and individuals, ranging from the ideological incubators of shariah and jihad to actual government-designated terrorist sponsors. Rather than being the hyper-partisan defense of Huma Abedin that the writer intends, this piece—and the accompanying chart—willfully contributes to a lack of understanding of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood that threaten our way of life, our freedoms, and our national security.

Even more, the hyperventilation on this issue by the likes of CNN’s Anderson Cooper, the evening lineup of MSNBC, John McCain, and Keith Ellison (who’s got his own Muslim Brotherhood ties) has the effect of legitimizing the Muslim Brotherhood and similar radical groups, effectively delivering the American Muslim community into its hands. If any criticism of the Brotherhood or its court-established front groups is tantamount to Islamophobia and is off limits, then our national security is in a perilous place. And, like their efforts to destroy anti-communists during the Cold War, we’ve got the left to blame.

The Muslim Brotherhood, Clinton State Department, John McCain and Todays Lax Security Mindset

July 24, 2012Christopher Holton

There was a time when it was considered necessary and proper to be concerned about possible foreign influences in US government and military service. Way back in 1981 when I first filled out forms as part of the process for joining the US military (it was a DOD form, I don’t remember the number) I had to answer a specific question regarding travel. The question asked if I had traveled to any of a list of nations after certain dates (all communist bloc countries) with a date listed by each nation (the date that each country had turned communist).

Anyone who joined the military in the Cold War era probably remembers this form and this question. If the answer to the question for any of the nations involved was "yes" you had to provide a complete explanation for the reason for the trip, when it took place, etc. Having never visited countries like Cuba, North Korea, East Germany, the Soviet Union, etc., I can’t say that I know what the process would have been had I answered yes.

But the point is, if you wanted to join the US military and you had even visited any communist countries, the Department of Defense wanted to know about it.

Fast forward to today. We are locked in a mortal struggle against a force not unlike communism. In fact, it has been called "communism with a god." That force is Islam as defined by the Shariah doctrine which forms the basis for it. There are certain countries and organizations that are prominent in the enemy threat doctrine. Yet, to my knowledge, today we have no similar safeguards in place to what the DOD had during the Cold War years to check on the influence of foreign powers on American institutions.

For instance, are any questions ever raised about travel to Iran, Syria or Sudan, three countries on the State Department’s list of terrorist sponsoring nations? For that matter, what about travel to Yemen, like Carlos Bledsoe did where he was indoctrinated to wage jihad in the USA by Anwar al-Alwaki? What about travel to the tribal areas of Pakistan, where the Times Square bomber traveled and received training? For that matter, how about travel to Saudi Arabia? After all, the Salafi strain of Islam that gave birth to Al Qaeda has its seat there and most of Al Qaeda’s cannon fodder seems to come from Saudi Arabia.

Then there is the whole present question of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood is best described as the forefather of all modern Jihadist terrorist groups. Its apologists and proponents claim that the Muslim Brotherhood has completely eschewed violence, yet the available evidence proves otherwise. HAMAS was founded as a Muslim Brotherhood wing and has been designated a foreign terrorist organization by the US State Department. HAMAS is one of the deadliest Jihadist organizations in the world, having carried out numerous Islamikaze bombings. And make no mistake, HAMAS has a large presence inside the USA.

There seems to have developed in recent years some romanticized view of the Muslim Brotherhood among certain naive political factions in the USA–and not just Democrats. Rather than being viewed as an organization in the political wing of a global insurgency, the Muslim Brotherhood is unfortunately being embraced in the West and the US. Senator John McCain, for instance, seems to have become smitten with the Muslim Brotherhood after meeting with them for a few hours in Egypt. But no one has embraced the Muslim Brotherhood quite like the Obama administration. The Obama administration has established close ties to Muslim Brotherhood organizations in the US and met with them at length and frequently. All indications are that the Muslim Brotherhood plays a prominent role in the Obama administration. Organizations like CAIR (the Council on American Islamic Relations) and ISNA (the Islamic Society of North America) were named unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial, the largest terrorism financing conviction in US history. (Attorney General Holder declined to prosecute these organizations when he came to office, despite intentions by others in the Justice Department to do so.) In the Holy Land Foundation trial, in documented evidence that was stipulated to by the defense, both CAIR and ISNA were identified as Muslim Brotherhood organizations.

And yes, a high-level member of the Clinton staff at the State Department, Huma Abedin, comes from a prominent Muslim Brotherhood family. Her father, her brother and her mother all have prominent positions in the Muslim Brotherhood apparatus. If during the Cold War such a person came from a family with extensive ties to the Communist Party of Romania or East Germany, there would have been ample reason to conduct a security investigation. But in today’s politically correct surreal world of Washington DC "go along to get along" culture, it seems that no questions can be raised. This is the same culture that looked the other way while a known Jihadist, Major Nidal Hassan, hid right out in the open in the US Army spouting Islamic Jihad doctrine, culminating in the terrible terrorist attack at Fort Hood.

Well, the Center for Security Policy DID raise questions. The Center produced a 10-part video course on the Muslim Brotherhood in America that every American should watch: http://www.muslimbrotherhoodinamerica.com. Among others members of Congress, Michelle Bachmann has written a letter to inspectors general of key Washington departments inquiring as to Muslim Brotherhood influence in Washington’s halls of power. For her trouble, the likes of Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Anderson Cooper and a host of Leftist media from the Huffington Post to the Los Angeles Times and MSNBC have attacked Rep. Bachmann.

They have all done so in a total vacuum of knowledge about the Muslim Brotherhood, the Holy Land Foundation trial and American fronts like CAIR and ISNA.

The Center has published a rebuttal to this shrill, emotional criticism.

This all stems from a complete failure of our leadership to put America on a war footing in the wake of 9/11. Our leaders have failed to identify the enemy. They have failed to even try to understand the enemy threat doctrine. In fact they have even denied that an enemy threat doctrine even exists. As a result of this culture, an imperialist, nefarious organization with long-standing ties to terrorism and with goals identical to those of Al Qaeda itself, namely the Muslim Brotherhood, is treated as a friend, rather than as a foe. If you even suggest that the Muslim Brotherhood might be an enemy of America, Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Anderson Cooper will attack you as if you are a wild-eyed bomb-thrower. We are indeed through the looking glass.

Genocide in Sudan: Call for Action, Cry for Change

July 20, 2012Center for Security Policy

This month marks the one-year anniversary of South Sudan’s birth as a country, yet there is little to celebrate. The Bashir regime of the northern Republic of Sudan is perpetuating conflict over resources in the wake of South Sudan’s 2011 succession. Aggressive bombings and genocidal violence are an attempt to win this civil war by essentially wiping out inhabitants in the border regions of South Sudan. Thousands of innocent civilians in Abyei, Blue Nile, and the Nuba Mountains are targeted by the Sudan Air Force. They are left with a grim choice: either die of starvation while fleeing for their lives, or face the violent attacks of northern air force.

On June 30, 2012, South Sudanese activists around the world joined the Sudanese people and rallied in several major cities, including Washington D.C.

Despite the 100-degree heat, a group of individuals representing the many regions affected by this conflict gathered in front of the Sudanese embassy promoting a clear message: down with Al-Bashir; end the genocide immediately. This rally focused on supporting recent student anti-government protests in the capital city of Khartoum that began in June.

The resolve of previous administrations led to the diplomatic success of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 2005 which led to the creation of South Sudan by referendum. Over the past few years, however, Sudanese activists have seen the current administration lend diplomatic credibility to Islamist totalitarians like Al-Bashir in Iran as well as lending military support, money, and aid to Islamists of the same ideological stripes as Al Qaeda in Libya and Egypt. These messages are confusing.

The Bashir regime has been a long-time partner and supporter of Hezbollah and even hosted Osama bin Laden until it was pressured by the U.S. to deny him safe haven. Despite Bashir’s unchecked aggression, President Obama telephoned the South Sudanese President Salva Kiir three times this spring asking him not to engage in defense of the Nuba people without significantly challenging the Khartoum regime to any effect.

The Center for Security Policy captured the hopes and frustrations of those giving a voice to the victims of Khartoum, past, present, and future.

For more information and background on the current situation in Sudan:

Wanted: A Competent Commander-In-Chief

April 30, 2012Frank Gaffney, Jr.

So, it turns out, Team Obama suddenly wants the 2012 presidential campaign to be about foreign policy, rather than the economy. Such a pivot might not be surprising given that, by President Obama’s own test, he has not cut unemployment to the point where he deserves to be reelected.

The Democrats have – if anything – a weaker case for reelecting this president on national security grounds. The campaign ad they unveiled on Friday, timed to take credit for the liquidation of Osama bin Laden on the first anniversary of that achievement, is a case in point.

The video used former President Bill Clinton to extol his successor’s role in the mission – and selectively quoted Republican nominee Mitt Romney to suggest he would not have done the same.

It is an act of desperation and contempt for the American people that, of all people, Mr. Clinton would be used in such a role. Let’s recall, during his presidency, he repeatedly declined to take out bin Laden. (So sensitive is the former president about this sorry record that his operatives insisted in 2006 that ABC excise from "Path to 9/11" – an outstanding made-for-TV film by Cyrus Nowrasteh – a dramatized version of one such episode. Check it out at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asw8fhpz0wA.)

More telling still is an issue inadvertently showcased by this controversy. While the Clinton-Obama-Biden spot tries to make Gov. Romney sound as though he wouldn’t have had the courage, or at least the vision, the President exhibited in a risky bid to take out bin Laden, what the presumptive Republican nominee actually said in 2007 in context illustrates a far better grasp than President Obama has of the enemy we confront:

"I wouldn’t want to over-concentrate on Bin Laden. He’s one of many, many people who are involved in this global Jihadist effort. He’s by no means the only leader. It’s a very diverse group – Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood and of course different names throughout the world. It’s not worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person. It is worth fashioning and executing an effective strategy to defeat global, violent Jihad and I have a plan for doing that."

Mr. Obama, by contrast, would have us believe that the problem in notonly just al Qaeda but that that threat is pretty much a thing of the past,thanks to bin Laden’s elimination and the decimation primarily by drone strikes of others among its leadership and rank and file. An unnamed senior State Department official told the NationalJournal last week, "The War on Terror is over" as Muslims embrace "legitimate Islamism."

Unfortunately, as Seth Jones observed in the Wall Street Journal on April 30, 2012, "Al Qaeda is far from dead. Acting as if it were will not make it so."

Even if al Qaeda actually had been defeated, however, we are – as Mitt Romney said five years ago – confronting a host of other jihadist enemies who seek the same goals as bin Laden’s al Qaeda and its franchises: the triumph of the totalitarian, supremacist Islamic doctrine of shariah and a global government, known as a caliphate, to govern according to it.

Unfortunately, as demonstrated conclusively in a free, web-based video course entitled "Muslim Brotherhood in America: the Enemy Within" released last week by the Center for Security Policy (www.MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com), far from understanding the danger posed by the rest of the jihadist enterprise, the Obama administration is actually making it stronger.

The evidence presented in this course suggests that could be due, at least in part, to the six Muslim Brotherhood-associated individuals the Center has identified who are either on the government’s payroll, advising it and/or being used for outreach to the American Muslim community. (See Part 8 for the details on the Obama Six.)

Whatever the motivation, consider how Team Obama has managed the three other groups Gov. Romney mentioned. The administration made no effort to impede the take-over of Lebanon by the Iranian foreign legion, the designated terrorist organization known as Hezbollah. It has actively helped bring to power, recognized and effectively turned over $1.5 billion to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Worse yet, it has, as noted above, embraced its operatives and front groups here. And President Obama personally directed last week that $170 million in U.S. foreign aid be given to a Palestinian Authority "unity government" which includes another designated terrorist organization, Hamas – incredibly on the grounds tthat "U.S. national security interests" required it.

Unfortunately for the Obama administration, fundamentally misconstruing the nature of the enemy is just part of this president’s ominous legacy with respect to his Commander-in-Chief portfolio. The wrecking operation he is engaged in with respect to our military’s capability to project power, its unilateral cuts to the U.S. nuclear deterrent and weakening our missile defenses may not be fully evident between now and the election. But the impact will be felt for generations to come. That will be true in spades of the war on the culture of the armed forces being waged inpursuit the radical left’s efforts to make-over American social norms and mores, starting with its most esteemed institution: the United States military.

Getting bin Laden isn’t the issue. The issue is whether President Obama is getting right the rest of his job as Commander-in-Chief. And, regrettably, he is not.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy (www.SecureFreedom.org), a columnist for the Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio, heard in Washington weeknights at 9:00 p.m. on WRC 1260 AM.

Losing the Jihadists’ War on America

April 23, 2012Frank Gaffney, Jr.

Have you ever asked yourself why, despite more than ten years of efforts –involving, among other things, the loss of thousands of lives in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, well-over a trillion dollars spent, countless man-years wasted waiting in airport security lines and endless efforts to ensure that no offense is given to seemingly permanently aggrieved Muslim activists – are we no closer to victory in the so-called “war on terror” than we were on 9/11?

Thankfully, we have been able to kill some dangerous bad guys. The sad truth of the matter is that, by almost any other measure, the prospect of victory is becoming more remote by the day. And no one seems able to explain the reason.

In an effort to provide the missing answer, on April 24^th, the Center for Security Policy is making available via the Internet a new, free ten-part video course called “The Muslim Brotherhood in America: The Enemy Within.” (www.MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com). This course connects the proverbial dots, drawing on a wealth of publicly available data and first-hand accounts to present a picture that has, for over a decade, been obscured, denied and suppressed:

America faces in addition to the threat of violent jihad another, even more toxic danger – a stealthy and pre-violent form of warfare aimed at destroying our constitutional form of democratic government and free society. The Muslim Brotherhood is the prime-mover behind this seditious campaign, which it calls “civilization jihad.”

The Muslim Brotherhood? Yes, that would be the same organization to which President Obama recently transferred $1.5 billion of our tax dollars in a lump sum payment. To do so, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had to waive congressionally imposed restrictions born of fully justified concerns about the nature and direction of the shariah-adherent government the Brotherhood is birthing in Egypt.

Mrs. Clinton’s presidentially-directed waiver came despite: the Brotherhood-dominated government’s hostage-taking of American democracy activists; murderous Islamist rampages against Coptic Christians and other religious minorities; the toleration and abetting of escalating violence against Israel in and from the Sinai; and official threats to jettison the 1979 peace treaty with the Jewish State. And matters have only gotten worse since the President’s largesse was made available in an unusual up-front, lump-sum payment.

Unfortunately, as the Center’s course makes clear, this episode is just the latest of many that flow from the subversion by Muslim Brotherhood operatives that has been happening within our civil society and governing institutions in every administration since Bill Clinton was in office. [During his presidency, a top Muslim Brother, Abdurahman Alamoudi, was actually put in charge of recruiting, training and credentialing Muslim chaplains for the U.S. military and prison system. Incredibly, some of them are believed to still be in place today, even though Alamoudi turns out to have been a top al Qaeda financier and is himself doing hard time at Supermax on terrorism charges.]

The George W. Bush administration was similarly subjected to Muslim Brotherhood penetration and influence operations. As the course documents, the Brothers’ access to and influence with senior officials in the years after 9/11 helped shape policies that, among other things, induced the federal government to: use euphemisms like “terror” to describe our jihadist enemy; reach out to the Muslim community in this country using virtually exclusively Brotherhood front organizations as liaisons; and provide support to and participation in shariah-compliant finance – an industry engaged in what one of its leaders, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, calls “jihad with money.”

Unfortunately, those look like the good old days compared to what is happening under the Obama administration. Not only has Mr. Obama facilitated, and now underwritten, the Muslim Brotherhood’s takeover in Egypt and an increasing number of states elsewhere in the Middle East. At his direction, explicit or implicit, the U.S. government is systematically purging its training materials of any information that Islamists might find offensive – including, factual information about shariah, its impelling of jihad (preferably violent and, where necessary, pre-violent), the Muslim Brotherhood’s mission of destroying us from within, etc.

Worse yet, under Team Obama, Brotherhood operatives doing business as Muslim “community leaders” are being allowed to have a say in what sort of training and outreach is done from here on, and by whom. Could we have won the Cold War if we gave a similar role to the KGB or the American Communist Party it ran? Or World War II if that role had been assigned to the German-American Bund?

In short, we are losing what is more accurately described as the “Jihadist’s War on America” because we are being subjected to a systematic, disciplined and highly successful campaign of what the military would call “information dominance.” It leaves us, as a nation, witless about the true nature of the enemy and his motivations and therefore incapable of countering them effectively.

On April 25, Glenn Beck will release an important new hour-long documentary that addresses many of these same points entitled “Rumors of War III.” It concludes, as does our course, with a powerful reminder of what is stake if we persist in such behavior and continue to lose the Jihadists’ War on America – a quote from a speech Ronald Reagan gave 50 years ago that rings as true today as ever:

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

Political Compromise of Our Security

April 9, 2012Frank Gaffney, Jr.

A troubling pattern of putting U.S. and allied security interests second to the Obama administration’s political priorities is now well-established. If allowed to continue, it will not only make the world more dangerous. It is going to get people killed – probably in large numbers and some of them may be Americans.

A prime example of the phenomenon was the disclosure of minute details of the 2011 raid by SEAL Team 6 withinhours of its successful liquidation of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. The revelation of special operations tradecraft horrified those in and out of the U.S. military who appreciate that safeguarding the secrecy of such techniques is essential toensuring their future utility, and the safety of those who employ them.

The really galling thing, though, was that such secrets were compromised for the transparent purpose of touting Mr. Obama’s decisiveness and competency as Commander-in-Chief. Regrettably, such qualities have not been much in evidence, either prior to or after that raid. For that matter, notwithstanding Vice President Joe Biden’s characteristically preposterous description of the operation as “the most audacious plan in 500 years,” it is not entirely clear what his boss’ role was in the execution, let alone the conception.

Still, given the importance now being attached to this narrative of vision and courage in the Obama reelection campaign, it is clear that the serial disclosure ofstate secrets by, most notably, the President’s counter-terrorism guru, Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan, was in the service of a political cause. Call it the ends justifying the means.

More recently, “four senior diplomats and military intelligence officers” reportedly fed Foreign Policy Magazine contributor Mark Perry a salacious story about Israel enlisting Azerbaijan in its plans for staging aircraft in an attack on Iran. Perry claims that “a senior administration official told [him] in early February that ‘The Israelis have bought an airfield, and the airfield is called Azerbaijan.’”

If true, such a disclosure would fit the pattern of deliberate, concerted and damaging leaks of exceedingly sensitive information in order to advance Team Obama’s political agenda. In this instance, that agenda would be to prevent any strike on Iranian nuclear and perhaps other targets by the Jewish State before the November elections.

True or not, the revelation has had the desired effect: It put the Azeri government of President Ilham Aliyev on the spot and forced it to disavow any such collaboration with Israel. While some have questioned the integrity of the author and the logic of his thesis, the trouble is, it certainly sounds like the Obama administration to see such a stunt as a highly desirable two-fer: an opportunity to undermine Israel’s security, while effectively protecting Iran.

It seems that a similar calculation moved the Obama administration to divulge what appeared on the front page of theWashington Post’s Sunday editions: An article citing unnamed White House and intelligence sources – including “a senior U.S. official involved in high-level discussions about Iran policy” – that revealed details about the intelligence operations and capabilities the United States is said to have brought to bear lately against Iran.

The ostensible purpose of these initiatives has been the monitoring and disabling of the Iranian nuclear weapons program. Among the insights: the CIA has stood up and greatly expanded a unitdubbed “Persia House” for the purpose of monitoring and running covert actions against Iran.

In the article, much was made of the growth of this organization, its use of stealthy unmanned drones to collect signals and other intelligence deep in Iran and U.S. involvement in computer worms, assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists and explosions in certain sensitive facilities involved in Iran’s weapons program.

The point of these leaks of exceedingly sensitive activities – at least some of which could constitute acts of war, however, seemed once again to be cynically manipulative: It appears designed to show the American people that everything is under control. Team Obama is working the problem, skillfully employing intelligence assets to prevent Iran’s nuclear ambitions from being realized without using military force.

The Post story also served as a vehicle for reiterating the administration’s party line: The mullahs have not decided to acquire an actual weapon and are at least a year away from getting one. And, what’s more, we will know should that decision be taken in plenty of time to do something about it.

We would all wish these assurances to be accurate. Unfortunately, the problem with the Obama administration’s practice of playing fast-and-loose with information that is secret for a reason – it might be called “political compromise,” but that would be the only sense of the term this president seems to favor – is that it almost certainly will jeopardize our security, and that of other freedom-loving people.

Political Compromise… of Our Security

April 9, 2012Frank Gaffney, Jr.

A prime example of the phenomenon was the disclosure of minute details of the 2011 raid by SEAL Team 6 within hours of its successful liquidation of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. The revelation of special operations tradecraft horrified those in and out of the U.S. military who appreciate that safeguarding the secrecy of such techniques is essential to ensuring their future utility, and the safety of those who employ them.

It seems that a similar calculation moved the Obama administration to divulge what appeared on the front page of the Washington Post’s Sunday editions: An article citing unnamed White House and intelligence sources – including “a senior U.S. official involved in high-level discussions about Iran policy” – that revealed details about the intelligence operations and capabilities the United States is said to have brought to bear lately against Iran.

The ostensible purpose of these initiatives has been the monitoring and disabling of the Iranian nuclear weapons program. Among the insights: the CIA has stood up and greatly expanded a unit dubbed “Persia House” for the purpose of monitoring and running covert actions against Iran.

The Post story also served as a vehicle for reiterating the administration’s party line: The mullahs have not decided to acquire an actual weapon and are at least a year away from getting one. And, what’s more, we will know should that decision be taken in plenty of time to do something about it.

The Truth or Taqiyya?

April 2, 2012Frank Gaffney, Jr.

One of the most important challenges we face as a free people is understanding the true nature of – and threat posed by – a totalitarian, supremacist Islamic doctrine its adherents call shariah. So, it would seem to be good news that a $3 million public education campaign is being launched nationwide to "clarify" what shariah is.

The question is: Will this campaign be truthful and helpful, or will it amount to an exercise in what is not only permissible under shariah, but obligatory: lying for the faith, or taqiyya in Arabic?

Unfortunately, since the sponsor of this initiative is one of the most virulent Muslim Brotherhood fronts in the United States, the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), the shariah tour will assuredly be all taqiyya, all the time. As we are seeing in Egypt at the moment, the Brotherhood is fully prepared to lie about its repressive agenda until it is too late for its opponents to resist.

As the old saying goes: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

For the purpose of calibrating whether the Muslim Brotherhood is trying to fool us yet again – this time, here in the United States – consider a sample of the research compiled by the Center for Security Policy about the Islamic Circle of North America, its heroes, leadership and agenda:

ICNA was founded in 1971 by leaders of Jamaat-e-Islami, an anti-American, fundamentalist, Taliban-supporting organization also known as the Pakistani branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Jamaat’s primary goal is the establishment of Islamic states worldwide, governed by the tyrannical, oppressive system of Shariah law.

ICNA reveres the rabid American-hating Iranian cleric-turned-despot, Ayatollah Khomeini. After 9/11, ICNA ran an earlier PR campaign extolling the "Great Leaders of the last 100 Years." It featured Khomeini, leader of the violent Shiite revolution and totalitarian regime in Iran. ICNA’s paean to this enemy of the United States remained on its website for years until it was removed prior to the launch of the organization’s current PR effort aimed at promoting shariah in this country.

ICNA also considers Sayyid Qutb and Sayyid Mawdudi – the Islamist ideologues who inspired a host of salafist organizations, including the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda – to be among the "Great Leaders of the last 100 Years."

ICNA has featured the Muslim Brotherhood’s current chief ideologue, Sheik Yussuf Al-Qaradawi. Among Qaradawi’s many unsavory stances is his view that democracy is permitted only when it complies with shariah. Writing in the ICNA magazine, The Message, Qaradawi states: "What we seek is that legislations and codes be within the limits of the flawless texts and the overall objectives of the shariah and the Islamic Message."

ICNA also identified the "Great Movements of the Last 100 Years." Not surprisingly given its association with the Muslim Brotherhood, this rosterprominently featured Al-Ikhwan Al-Muslimeen (the Brotherhood’s name in Arabic) and two other Brotherhood-inspired Pakistani jihadist groups, Jama’at-e-Islami and Tablighi Jama’at.

A former ICNA president, Zulfiqar Ali Shah, was also president in 2005 of the South Asia Division of KindHearts, an Islamist so-called "charity" whose assets were frozen by the U.S. Treasury in the following year for its funneling of funds to Hamas. KindHearts is still contesting its listing by the U.S. Treasury as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist organization. Hamas, of course, is also officially identified as such a terrorist organization, one responsible for thousands of murders – including of American citizens.

Also in 2006, ICNA and two spin-offs, ICNA Relief and ICNA Helping Hand, funded the Al-Khidmat Welfare Society and Al-Khidmat Foundation, which then gave Hamasnearly $100,000.

ICNA’s past Secretary General and Vice President Ashrafuz Zaman Khan, who was also a past president of the organization’s New York chapter, is reportedly about to be indicted for war crimes by the Bangladesh International Crimes Tribunal for the systematic execution of civilians during the civil war there. Bangladeshi groups claim Khan was a chief executioner for the al-Badr force, personally killing seven Dhaka University teachers in the city of Mirpur.

A December 2001 ICNA South East Region convention had a special program honoring convicted murderer Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin (a.k.a. H. Rap Brown), who is currently serving a life-sentence for killing a sheriff’s deputy.

The curriculum for ICNA’s women’s organization promotes jihad, shariah rule, hatred of Jews and Christians, and warns of the "dangers of secular Western thoughts and ideas."

In short, the Islamic Circle of North America is pretty much as unreliable a source as one can imagine for factual information about the unconstitutional – indeed, anti-constitutional – character of shariah, the real objectives of its adherents elsewhere and here, and the implications for a free society like ours of submitting to this brutally women-hating, intolerant and repressive doctrine. It would be nice to know who is putting up the $3 million for such an outfit to propagandize and mislead the American people.

We cannot afford to be fooled by Islamists any further, particularly about their ambitions for, to coin a phrase, fundamentally transforming the United States of America. We need the truth about shariah, not taqiyya.

ICNAs Shariah For America Campaign Hides Extremist Beliefs and Associations

March 29, 2012Center for Security Policy

Community Awareness Scam Alert
“Know the facts. Spread the word.”

ICNA’s “Shariah For America” Campaign Hides Extremist Beliefs and Associations

This Community Awareness Alert informs local media, community leaders and law enforcement about the known extremist beliefs and actions of leaders of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA). ICNA has announced a “$3 million dollar” campaign promoting Shariah law in America, featuring billboards in at least 15 U.S. cities, “Shariah seminars” on 20 college campuses, and town hall-style forums and interfaith events in 25 cities. For more information, go to www.shariahthethreat.com.

When you know the facts, you can help educate and prepare your community. Don’t get scammed by ICNA.

The Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) was founded in 1971 by leaders of Jamaat-e-Islami[1], an anti-American,[2] fundamentalist, Taliban-supporting organization also known as the Pakistani branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Jamaat’s primary goal is the establishment of Islamic states worldwide, governed by the tyrannical, oppressive system of Shariah law. [3]

ICNA reveres Ayatollah Khomeini: After 9/11, ICNA’s PR campaign for the “Great Leaders of the last 100 Years” featured Ayatollah Khomeini, leader of the anti-American, violent Shi’ite revolution and totalitarian regime in Iran. The campaign stayed up at the website for years before ICNA scrubbed it, prior to mounting the current PR campaign promoting Shariah law in America.[4]
ICNA reveres Qutb and Mawdudi, the inspiration for al Qaeda: ICNA’s “Great Leaders of the last 100 Years” PR campaign also included the two great ideological leaders of modern jihadist terrorism: Sayyid Abul Ala Mawdudi and Sayyid Qutb, both primary influences on al Qaeda. [5]
ICNA’s role models advocate jihad to achieve political goals: ICNA’s identifed “Great Movements of the Last 100 Years” included Al-Ikhwan Al-Muslimeen (Muslim Brotherhood), and Pakistani Islamist groups Jama’at-e-Islami and Tablighi Jama’at.[6]
ICNA’s Past President was also a leader of Hamas-funder KindHearts as recently as 2005: ICNA’s Past President Zulfizar Ali Shah was also President of the KindHearts “Charity” South Asia Division in 2005, whose assets were frozen in 2006 by the U.S. Treasury for funneling funds to Hamas[7]. KindHearts is still legally contesting the U.S. Treasury’s previous designation as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist organization. [8] Hamas is a designated terrorist organization responsible for thousands of murders.
ICNA’s Past Secretary General is under investigation for civilian executions: ICNA’s past Secretary General and Vice President Ashrafuz Zaman Khan, also a past President of the ICNA NY Chapter, is reportedly about to be indicted for war crimes by the Bangladesh International Crimes Tribunal for the systematic execution of civilians during the civil war. Bangladeshi groups claim Khan was a chief executioner for the al-Badr force, personally killing seven Dhaka University teachers in the city of Mirpur.[9]
ICNA has supported convicted cop-killer H. Rap Brown: A December 2001 ICNA South East region convention had a special program honoring convicted murderer Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin (aka H. Rap Brown) who is serving a life sentence for killing a sheriff’s deputy.[10]
ICNA featured Muslim Brotherhood extremist leader Sheik Al-Qaradawi (banned from entry into the U.S. since 1999) stating that democracy is permitted only when it complies with Shariah law: Writing in the ICNA magazine “The Message,” Qaradawi states “What we seek is that legislations and codes be within the limits of the flawless texts and the overall objectives of the Shari’ah and the Islamic Message.”[11]
ICNA promotes hatred of Jews and Christians: The curricula for ICNA’s women’s organization promotes jihad, shariah rule, hatred of Jews and Christians, and warns of the “dangers of secular Western thoughts and ideas.”[12]
ICNA, ICNA Relief and ICNA Helping Hand funded the Al-Khidmat Welfare Society and Al-Khidmat Foundation, which then gave Hamas – a designated terrorist organization – $99,000 in 2006[13].