Tag Archives: Arab Spring

Obama’s perfect storms

Barack Obama faces not one but two perfect storms.  He may actually be grateful for the meteorological one if it predictably helps obscure the political one at least for the next week.

Hurricane Sandy is, of course, a disaster no one would welcome.  Untold numbers of Americans are having their lives endangered, or at least severely disrupted, and the potential economic harm is unimaginable at this point.

The president could nonetheless see a silver lining in this horrific “weather event.”  For one thing, he gets to posture as the leader of the nation in a terrible time of testing, the doler-out of federal emergency assistance and the great consoler around whom we instinctively rally in such circumstances.

Perhaps more importantly for Team Obama, many voters are going to have many other things on their minds for the next few, critical days instead of thinking about the evidence that their Commander-in-Chief was seriously derelict regarding the murderous attack in Benghazi.  The President’s reelection bid cannot afford in the closing days of a putatively very close election to have his fraudulent claim to successful stewardship of the national security portfolio be as exposed as his dismal economic record.

It remains to be seen, however, if Frankenstorm Sandy will do more than simply defer the day of reckoning for Mr. Obama. Whether it occurs on November 6th or afterwards, the rising popular revulsion at what happened in Libya on September 11, 2012 and the Obama administration’s dissembling, deflections and outright lies in the weeks that followed should blow this presidency away.  Consider a sample of the damning information that has come to light so far:

  • As the attack was underway, the President knew what was going on. Thanks to two unmanned drones, real-time intelligence was being fed to as many as eight different critical civilian and military nodes – including the White House. Published reports indicate that Mr. Obama himself, as well as his senior subordinates, were exposed to those video feeds.
  • Consequently, it was apparent in the actual course of the event that jihadists were engaging in a murderous military-style assault on a U.S. diplomatic mission, not simply demonstrators running amok.  There had been no demonstration in Benghazi.  Period.  Yet, administration spokesmen, up to and including Mr. Obama himself, said otherwise repeatedly.
  • There had been requests for improved security at the Benghazi facilities and other sites in Libya.  There had also been requests simply to retain the security forces that had been in place in-country up until summer’s end.  The Obama administration denied those requests and then prevaricated about having done so.  Think Vice President Joe Biden in his debate with Rep. Paul Ryan.
  • Within an hour of the start of the attack, Mr. Obama met with his national security team’s senior civilian and military national security leaders.  The President has claimed he issued an order to “make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to.” It is not clear at this writing to whom that order was given.  What is clear, though, is that serial requests for supporting fire and reinforcements from some of those personnel were denied.
  • Reportedly, Ambassador Christopher Smith chose on September 11th to be in Benghazi, even though he had expressed growing concern that it and the rest of Libya were becoming increasingly dangerous.  He had a first-hand appreciation of just how dangerous since he had, for over a year, helped arm, finance and otherwise support Libya’s most aggressive Islamist elements in the interest of achieving the overthrow of Muammar Qaddafi.

What was so important as to prompt our top diplomat in Libya to make such a dangerous foray?  It seems the ambassador felt compelled to meet with the Turkish consul general that evening for the purpose of damage-limitation following the compromise of the secret weapons pipeline Chris Stevens was then running to Syria.  By some accounts, the Russians, Iranians and others had discovered that he was covertly providing automatic weapons, rocket-propelled grenades and even shoulder-fired, man-portable anti-aircraft missiles to “the opposition” there, including known jihadists associated with the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda.

The revelation that Barack Obama was presiding over an operation involving gun-running to our enemies – including weapons virtually certain to be turned against us, later if not sooner – could have been fatal to his reelection bid.  Add to that the evidence that a serious U.S. military response to the violence in Benghazi would provide of the fatuousness and mendacity of the administration’s “Arab Spring” and “lead-from-behind” in Libya narratives.  Toss in, too, Mr. Obama’s refusal to act to save American lives and you have a perfect storm for a president.

In the crisis, President Obama was evidently paralyzed, not decisive let alone  courageous.  Regrettably, the loss of four of our countrymen that fateful night and the cover-up that followed will come to be seen by history as simply the leitmotif of a Commander-in-Chief whose record is a virtually unmitigated disaster for the United States.

It behooves all of us, and most especially the mainstream media, to stay focused – despite the devastating impact of hurricane-force winds, widespread blackouts and massive flooding – on the insights and lessons of the still-unfolding Benghazigate firestorm.

Election in Venezuela

The upcoming October 7th elections in Venezuela do not constitute just another round of elections in another country. These elections are crucial for the future of Latin America and for the security of the United States. In fact, it is no exaggeration to point out that the Venezuelan drama should be as great a  concern as the  elections in the young democracies of the Middle East that emerged in the aftermath of the Arab spring.

Unfortunately, the Venezuelan electoral process  has been characterized by intimidation of the opposition and the press, violence, and indiscriminate use of state resources, all this with the objective of providing an advantage to Hugo Chavez.

In fact,  two supporters of Henrique Capriles Radonsky, the opposition candidate  challenging the President,  were recently shot to death.

Although Chavez and his interior Minister pledged to make every effort to bring the killers to justice, the case seems to follow an environment of intimidation and fear that has characterized the Chavez campaign. Opposition rallies have been blocked and undermined by pro-Chavez supporters and fistfights have been very common. Even the last killings took place at the time Chavez supporters blocked a motorcade of Capriles supporters. In September, Chavez supporters blocked a motorcade and burned a truck that belonged to the Capriles campaign.

As polls have shown a tight race between the two contending sides, Mr. Capriles has proven himself adept at mobilizing large crowds. In the aftermath of the election, It seems almost inevitable that violence will increase especially if Chavez loses the race.

Experts have discussed possible scenarios in the aftermath of October 7th. They predict that if Chavez loses the election there might be a rise in violence, street protests, political hooliganism, and even sabotage of public services or invalidation of the election. So far, the Venezuelan government has rejected observers.

A paper written by Dr. Ray Walser, a Senior Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, is called “The Chavez Plan to Steal the Venezuelan Election.”  In that document, Walser unequivocally defines the electoral process as an attempt by Chavez to win the election by non-legitimate means.  Walser describes how Chavez has used state power and monopoly over the main natural resource (oil) to spend money to benefit people; how  he has restricted the media and freedom of the press including laws that protect slander of the President; and how he has abused the electoral rules that limit air time for other presidential candidates.

Walser stresses that the electoral process has been flawed. Many voters have raised questions about whether their vote is really secret as their fingerprints, which are required as an anti-fraud mechanism, may be ultimately used to reveal the identity and the political choice of the voter. There is also concern about fraudulent registration of people who are not legally allowed to vote.

I would add that violent scenarios could be created not only if Chavez loses but also even if Chavez wins. This is not necessarily because the opposition and Capriles supporters are violent but because if it is perceived that Chavez cheated, there will be rage similar to the one that took place in the Ukraine and some of the former Soviet satellites and Republics a few years ago. This sense of fraud might mobilize people who are tired of Chavez’s chaotic and authoritarian rule.

In either case, Chavez is likely to mobilize his militias and paramilitary; violence will ensue but this time the presence of fire -arms will increase and we will see  a situation of civil war. Not unlike what is now occurring in Syria.

It will be interesting to see how the United States will respond should Venezuela erupt.

In his paper, Walser urges the United States government to support civil society and continue to support NGO activity to train domestic electoral observers. Walser also urges the Administration to reaffirm their commitment to democracy and demand transparency.  Likewise, he suggests that the United States  work in coalition with other countries in the region and in Europe  to act in unison in case of fraud or violence that might  arise. Finally, Walser calls on the Administration to develop a plan of action that could include severe economic sanctions such as designating Venezuela a state sponsor of terrorism, thereby prohibiting the importation of Venezuelan oil.

These recommendations are certainly right on target. We can only hope that countries such as Brazil, Colombia, Chile and a few others will stand on the side of democracy without making excuses in the name of national sovereignty.  These countries have to understand that the prevalence of authoritarianism may have a contagious effect in the hemisphere and can promote more and more pro-Chavez leaders in the region . The clearest examples are, beside the countries of the Bolivarian alliance, the former Government of Manuel Zelaya in Honduras, a conservative who became a Bolivarian, and the current government of Cristina Kirchner in Argentina. Almost 30 years ago, Argentina rejected authoritarianism after  horrible years  of repression. Ms. Kirchner has elevated Chavez to the level of a statesman and a hero. What is worse she has replicated  a number of Chavez’s practices including the nationalization of private companies, bullying of the opposition and the private sector, control and censorship of the media. In addition Kirchner has created a constant discourse of hostility, and has instigated a suspicious project of constitutional reform.

The U.S needs to exercise leadership among countries in the Hemisphere but making sure that the Democratic Charter signed by members of the Organization of American States (OAS) is implemented. The U.S must exercise its influence to take democratic leadership in the region or allow another key country to do so. It would be ideal if Brazil could be persuaded to take such leadership as the country is a growing democracy and economic power.

I would add that the struggle for democracy in our hemisphere should not be merely based on moral principles. The struggle for democracy needs to be understood as a major strategic tool of national security. Democracy promotion creates a culture of peace and tolerance. A real democracy includes substantive components that reject elements such as alliances with rogue states.

As Venezuela continues to ally itself with Iran, Belarus, Russia and China, the security threat on the United States aggravates. Chavez has brought his Bolivarian allies in the hemisphere including Presidents Rafael Correa from Ecuador, Evo Morales from Bolivia and Daniel Ortega from Nicaragua into similar alliances with Iran. If Iran turns nuclear, it is likely that missiles will be posted on Venezuelan soil creating a major threat to our security.

Chavez has built an illiberal democracy that includes  regular elections but  nothing else: no rule of law, no reasonable dialogue between the factions, no free press and abundant violence and intimidation. Chavez, nonetheless, rules because he continues to be elected. This is the card he holds to maintain his legitimacy. This is why Western Hemisphere  countries have accepted Venezuela as a democracy,  as have  the Organization of American States (OAS) and  Mercosur (The South American Common Market). In both organizations democracy is a pre-condition to become a member. However, Venezuela does not seem to fall under the category of non-democratic countries because Chavez  elections are held and Chavez has been “democratically elected”..

If Chavez continues in power,  he will consolidate his regime to the point where it will survive his death. Moreover, both China and Russia have  major interests in perpetuating the Chavez government for a number of reasons including an ability to counteract U.S. influence in the hemisphere.

The United States cannot treat the Venezuelan case as it has treated the Syrian case. Our national security is at stake.

U.S. policy should be as determined and aggressive as possible with the purpose of restoring genuine democracy to Venezuela and the hemisphere. The morning after the election will be the real test for the region and for the United States.

Spring Time for Sharia in Araby

The release of Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy, PJM columnist and former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy’s brilliant, evocatively written jeremiad, could not be more timely.

As Americans solemnly commemorated the 11th anniversary of the cataclysmic acts of jihad terrorism on September 11, 2001, jihadists in Egypt and Libya were besieging our government buildings in these Muslim countries, eventually murdering U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. officials….

 

The full article can be read at P.J. Media.

Counterterror Training, Education and Analysis

Over more than a decade following 9/11, Major Stephen Coughlin was one of the U.S. government’s most astute and objective analysts, and an expert on the connections between Islamic law, terrorism and the jihadist movement around the globe. Through knowledge of published Islamic law, Major Coughlin had a demonstrated ability to forecast events both in the Middle East and domestically and to accurately assess the future threat posture of jihadist entities before they happened. He has briefed at the Pentagon, for national and state law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and on Capitol Hill for Members of Congress. Today, he is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Policy. His book, Catastrophic Failure, will be released in late 2012.

With this series of presentations, the general public has access to a professional standard of intelligence training in order to better understand the jihadist threat.

PARTS OF THIS SERIES:

  1. Lectures on National Security & Counterterror Analysis (Introduction)
  2. Understanding the War on Terror Through Islamic Law
  3. Abrogation and the ‘Milestones’ Process
  4. The Muslim Brotherhood, the Arab Spring & the ‘Milestones’ Process
  5. The Role of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in Enforcing Islamic Law

 

Part 1: Lectures on National Security & Counterterror Analysis (Introduction)

 

Part 2: Understanding the War on Terror Through Islamic Law

 

Part 3: Abrogation and the ‘Milestones’ Process

 

Part 4: The Muslim Brotherhood, the Arab Spring & the ‘Milestones’ Process

 

Part 5: Role of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in Enforcing Islamic Law

A Disturbing Event: The American Conservative Union Embraces an Islamist

The conservative movement appears to be at a crossroads in its approach to the threat of Islamic supremacism—not only abroad but at home. Does the emergence of the Muslim Brotherhood as the dominant force of the “Arab Spring” bode ill for America? Or is the Brotherhood merely another “political actor” as the Obama administration would have us believe? Is Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff, a potential security risk worth investigating, as Representative Michele Bachmann and four conservative congressmen have suggested? Or is the mere raising of this question a witch-hunt, as Senator John McCain and Speaker John Boehner and numerous Democrats maintain?…

The full article can be read at frontpagemag.com.

Obama ‘Lost’ Egypt

In the past, American presidential campaigns have featured bitter recriminations over foreign policy reverses.  Harry Truman was charged with having “lost China” following the take-over of the Chinese mainland by Mao Tse-Tung’s communists. In subsequent years similar formulations were used to challenge those responsible for the loss to the Free World of Vietnam, Iran and post-Soviet Russia.

Today, the question for voters in the 2012 election to ponder might be posed as “Who lost Egypt?”  To make matters worse, it is likely that the losses won’t stop there. 

Indeed, before it’s over, we may well see nearly all the Middle East fall under the sway of the team President Obama has helped come to power in Cairo – the Muslim Brotherhood, to the grave detriment of the people most immediately affected, of Israel and of our interests, there and here.

To be sure, it is unclear at the moment exactly how things will shake-out in Egypt.  The Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party succeeded in having its candidate, Mohammed Morsi, elected president in recent weeks and installed in that office on Saturday.  But the Egyptian military continues to be very much a force to be reckoned with and the extent and timing of any formal relinquishing of its current control of virtually all aspects of the government – from the armed services to the many industries they own to the parliament and constitution-writing mechanisms – remains to be seen.

Still, the direction Morsi seeks to take his country is unmistakable and should be deeply worrying to all who hoped for an authentic Arab Spring in Egypt and fear the emergence there and elsewhere of an Islamist Winter.  While the newly installed president has professed that he will be the leader of all Egyptians and promised to give tangible expression to that commitment by appointing as his vice presidents a Coptic Christian, a woman and a secular political figure, these will be, atbest mere window-dressing if he sticks to his pledge to impose shariah on all his countrymen.

For example, as captured in an Egyptian television report of May 13, 2012 translated by the indispensable Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reLigeHGKzE&feature=player_embedded&noredirect=1) – Morsi espoused during the course of the campaign the key tenets of the Muslim Brotherhood: “The Quran is our constitution. Jihad is our path. And death for the sake of Allah is our most lofty aspiration.”  He went on to add, “This nation will enjoy blessing and revival only through Islamic shariah.”  Morsi concluded by saying, “I take an oath before Allah and before you all that regardless of the actual text of  [the constitution], Allah willing, the text will truly reflect shariah.”

Now in office, Mohammed Morsi is making clear that this direction may have dire implications for us, as well as for the people of Egypt.  He has declared that one of his priorities as president will be to secure the release from a life-sentence in U.S. federal prison of Omar Abdul Rahman.  Abdul Rahman is better known as the Blind Sheikh and the prime-moverbehind various terrorist plots – including trying to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993.  Morsi wants himrepatriated to Egypt, ostensibly so he can serve out the rest of his sentence there.  Fat chance.

Which brings us to Team Obama.  President Obama was instrumental in assisting the Muslim Brotherhood emerge from the shadows and come to power.  For example, over the strenuous objections of his hosts, Mr. Obama demanded that the Brotherhood’s representatives be included in his June 2009 “outreach to the Muslim world” address at Cairo University.   

Less than two years later, Mr. Obama declared that Hosni Mubarak had to yield power within days of the Muslim Brotherhood’s operatives and other demonstrators taking to the streets demanding his overthrow.  In the months that followed, his administration began “engaging” with the Brotherhood and its formal political arm, the Freedom and Justice Party.

Then, a few months ago, in the face of bipartisan objections from Capitol Hill, the Obama administration transferred $1.5 billion in a lump-sum, no-strings-attached grant to the Egyptian government.  This occurred at a time when Muslim Brotherhood and allied “Salafist” legislators were in charge of its parliament and drawing up a new constitution.

Most recently, Mr. Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have welcomed the ascendancy of the Brotherhood’s Morsi.  They are evidently considering giving tangible expression to that sentiment by accommodating his demand for the release the Blind Sheikh as they allowed Hani Noor Eldin, a top member of Abdul Raman’s terrorist Gema’a al-Islamiyaa organization, to enter the U.S. and discuss the idea with their subordinates.

Should Team Obama now take this step, it would have an absolutely devastating effect – and not just in Egypt, where it would validate America’s utter submission to the Brotherhood agenda.  It will also be seen as further evidence that the global Islamist enterprise, of which the Brotherhood is the institutional and ideological vanguard, is succeeding inmaking the West – as the Quran puts it – “feel subdued.”

In short, the practical effect of “losing” Egypt in this way will be, pursuant to the doctrine of shariah, to invite aredoubled effort, including through the use of violence, to achieve the Brotherhood goals of imposing that totalitarian, repressive and supremacist code worldwide.  President Barack Obama must be held accountable for the consequences.

Who ‘Lost’ Egypt?

In the past, American presidential campaigns have featured bitter recriminations over foreign policy reverses.  Harry Truman was charged with having “lost China” following the take-over of the Chinese mainland by Mao Tse-Tung’s communists. In subsequent years similar formulations were used to challenge those responsible for the loss to the Free World of Vietnam, Iran and post-Soviet Russia.

Today, the question for voters in the 2012 election to ponder might be posed as “Who lost Egypt?”  To make matters worse, it is likely that the losses won’t stop there. 

Indeed, before it’s over, we may well see nearly all the Middle East fall under the sway of the team President Obama has helped come to power in Cairo – the Muslim Brotherhood, to the grave detriment of the people most immediately affected, of Israel and of our interests, there and here.

To be sure, it is unclear at the moment exactly how things will shake-out in Egypt.  The Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party succeeded in having its candidate, Mohammed Morsi, elected president in recent weeks and installed in that office on Saturday.  But the Egyptian military continues to be very much a force to be reckoned with and the extent and timing of any formal relinquishing of its current control of virtually all aspects of the government – from the armed services to the many industries they own to the parliament and constitution-writing mechanisms – remains to be seen.

Still, the direction Morsi seeks to take his country is unmistakable and should be deeply worrying to all who hoped for an authentic Arab Spring in Egypt and fear the emergence there and elsewhere of an Islamist Winter.  While the newly installed president has professed that he will be the leader of all Egyptians and promised to give tangible expression to that commitment by appointing as his vice presidents a Coptic Christian, a woman and a secular political figure, these will be, atbest mere window-dressing if he sticks to his pledge to impose shariah on all his countrymen.

For example, as captured in an Egyptian television report of May 13, 2012 translated by the indispensable Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reLigeHGKzE&feature=player_embedded&noredirect=1) – Morsi espoused during the course of the campaign the key tenets of the Muslim Brotherhood: “The Quran is our constitution. Jihad is our path. And death for the sake of Allah is our most lofty aspiration.”  He went on to add, “This nation will enjoy blessing and revival only through Islamic shariah.”  Morsi concluded by saying, “I take an oath before Allah and before you all that regardless of the actual text of  [the constitution], Allah willing, the text will truly reflect shariah.”

Now in office, Mohammed Morsi is making clear that this direction may have dire implications for us, as well as for the people of Egypt.  He has declared that one of his priorities as president will be to secure the release from a life-sentence in U.S. federal prison of Omar Abdul Rahman.  Abdul Rahman is better known as the Blind Sheikh and the prime-moverbehind various terrorist plots – including trying to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993.  Morsi wants himrepatriated to Egypt, ostensibly so he can serve out the rest of his sentence there.  Fat chance.

Which brings us to Team Obama.  President Obama was instrumental in assisting the Muslim Brotherhood emerge from the shadows and come to power.  For example, over the strenuous objections of his hosts, Mr. Obama demanded that the Brotherhood’s representatives be included in his June 2009 “outreach to the Muslim world” address at Cairo University.   

Less than two years later, Mr. Obama declared that Hosni Mubarak had to yield power within days of the Muslim Brotherhood’s operatives and other demonstrators taking to the streets demanding his overthrow.  In the months that followed, his administration began “engaging” with the Brotherhood and its formal political arm, the Freedom and Justice Party.

Then, a few months ago, in the face of bipartisan objections from Capitol Hill, the Obama administration transferred $1.5 billion in a lump-sum, no-strings-attached grant to the Egyptian government.  This occurred at a time when Muslim Brotherhood and allied “Salafist” legislators were in charge of its parliament and drawing up a new constitution.

Most recently, Mr. Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have welcomed the ascendancy of the Brotherhood’s Morsi.  They are evidently considering giving tangible expression to that sentiment by accommodating his demand for the release the Blind Sheikh as they allowed Hani Noor Eldin, a top member of Abdul Raman’s terrorist Gema’a al-Islamiyaa organization, to enter the U.S. and discuss the idea with their subordinates.

Should Team Obama now take this step, it would have an absolutely devastating effect – and not just in Egypt, where it would validate America’s utter submission to the Brotherhood agenda.  It will also be seen as further evidence that the global Islamist enterprise, of which the Brotherhood is the institutional and ideological vanguard, is succeeding inmaking the West – as the Quran puts it – “feel subdued.”

In short, the practical effect of “losing” Egypt in this way will be, pursuant to the doctrine of shariah, to invite aredoubled effort, including through the use of violence, to achieve the Brotherhood goals of imposing that totalitarian, repressive and supremacist code worldwide.  President Barack Obama must be held accountable for the consequences.

The Brotherhood’s Bait and Switch

Egypt’s newly elected president, Mohammed Morsi, says he will be a “leader for all Egyptians.”  That sounds a lot like the sorts of lies his fellow Muslim Brothers have been telling for months, only to renege on them when they can.  We ignore the true character and ambitions of the Brotherhood – in Egypt, elsewhere in the Mideast, in the wider world and here – at our extreme peril.

In fact, the Brothers’ bait-and-switch gambits are standard operating procedure for their secretive organization.  After all, from the Muslim Brotherhood’s inception in Egypt in 1928, it has been a revolutionary organization committed to the imposition worldwide of a totalitarian, supremacist Islamic doctrine they call shariah. 

The unattractiveness of that brutally repressive agenda to non-Muslims and even many Muslims, has forced the group to operate largely in the shadows.  It wages a stealthy, pre-violent “civilization jihad” to advance its goals until circumstances are ripe for conquest via violent jihadism.

In the hope of attenuating the military’s opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood  rise, the latter has utilized myriad subterfuges.  In previous rounds of elections, the Brotherhood promised that it would not seek a parliamentary majority.  Then, it did.  It promised not to run a candidate for president.  Then, it actually ran two of them.

As its power grew, the Brotherhood cynically abandoned others in the opposition in the hope of cutting deals with the junta that ruled Egypt following the overthrow of long-time U.S. ally, Hosni Mubarak: the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF).  When the SCAF cracked down on the eve of the second round of the presidential election, however, the Brothers were back in Tahrir Square making nice with those unlikely to fare well under shariah – Christians, secular liberals and women to whom   Morsi’s soothing words are obviously intended to appeal. 

Another Brotherhood bait-and-switch was laid bare in a Wall Street Journal interview with the Brotherhood’s formidable deputy supreme guide, Khairat Al Shater.  As Matthew Kaminski put it “If the Muslim Brotherhood came to power, Mr. Al Shater would be in charge.”  In other words, Morsi is a puppet for the leader of an outfit described by Kaminski as “a closed, rigidly hierarchical and disciplined quasi-Trotskyite organization.” 

Khairat Al Shater revealed one more gambit in his interview with the Journal.  Mr. Kaminski quoted him as saying that “the priority is ‘a close partnership’ with the U.S. which the [Brotherhood] expects to help it unlock credit markets and gain international legitimacy.” 

The Muslim Brotherhood appears to have a most willing partner for such purposes in President Obama and his administration.  On the occasion of Mr. Obama’s first “outreach to the Muslim world” speech at Cairo’s al-Azhar University in June 2009, he insisted that Brotherhood operatives be in the audience.  He threw Mubarak under the bus within a few days of demonstrations erupting in Tahrir Square and elsewhere in Egypt (instark contrast to his indifference to far larger and longer-running ones inIran). 

What is more, since the first “Arab Spring” uprisings in February 2011, Team Obama has engaged with the Brotherhood extensively – both here and in the region – and signaled its willingness to do so in government.  Notably, in April 2012, after the Brotherhood dominated parliamentary elections, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ordered the transfer of $1.5 billion in a lump-sum, no-strings-attached grant to Egypt.

 The best hope for those who legitimately fear the Muslim Brotherhood and its unwavering – if only intermittently acknowledged – determination to impose shariah in Egypt may be for the military there to continue to resist pressure to yield power to theMuslim Brotherhood.

Unfortunately, that pressure will be immense.  It will emanate from, among others, the Obama administration.  Team Obama’s support for the Brotherhood has become more and more aggressive, and reckless.  In the process, it is empowering not only the most serious enemy of any hope for freedom in the Middle East, but avowed enemies of this country, as well.

The next shoe to drop in that regard may be a decision by President Obama to agree to a demand from Egyptian Islamists to free one oftheir most dangerous leaders, Omar Abdul Rahman, the notorious “Blind Sheikh” who ordered the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993.  That unrepentant terrorist subsequently tried to use his attorney, Lynne Stewart, to communicate from federal prison an order to his followers to conduct still further, murderous jihadist acts. 

Abdul Rahman’s return to Cairo – a jihadist triumph that would likely make the Islamists’ rapture at the return of Ayatollah Khomeini to Iran in 1979 pale by comparison – has been urged most recently during high-level meetings in Washington by Hani Nour Eldin.  Eldin is a member of the Blind Sheikh’s designated terrorist organization, Gama’a al-Islamiyya.  An incredulous House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King (R-NY) has written HomelandSecurity Secretary Janet Napolitano asking why such a dangerous individual was granted a visa by the Obama administration and for her position on the release Abdul Rahman.

Subterfuge, subversion and sedition in the name of shariah are the tradecraft of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Team Obama’s enabling of the Brothers’ ascendancy in Egypt and its embrace of their operatives and those of other Islamist organizations in this country (see www.MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com) is, if not actually illegal, certainly dangerous in the extreme.

David Littman, 1933-2012: He Showed Us The Mettle of His Pasture

My friend and generous mentor, the historian and fearless human rights activist, David Gerald Littman, died yesterday, May 20, 2012, succumbing to acute myelogenous leukemia, after a stoic, typically intrepid struggle.

In addition to amassing own his unique and prodigious output, David was a devoted husband and champion of the pioneering scholarship of his wife of 53 years, Gisele Orebi, better known under her nom de plume, Bat Ye’or. Despite stultifying modern taboos, together, the Littmans worked indefatigably to educate humanity-non-Muslim and Muslim, alike-about the genocidal living legacy of jihadism.

David’s remarkable personal biography melded first-rate, original scholarship, with uniquely erudite and brave activism-combined efforts spanning over 50 years.

For example, Littman was the driving force behind the daring 1961 Operation Mural (chronicled in this  55 minute documentary). Mural was Mossad’s code-name for David whose cover was a public-school-educated Anglican gentleman, a cordial tennis partner with the British consul, and also possessing excellent security contacts in Casablanca. David Littman successfully completed the mission: defying the Moroccan ban on Jews wishing to emigrate to Israel, he smuggled 530 Jewish children out of Morocco to what the Moroccan authorities thought was a holiday camp in Switzerland-in reality, a mere way-station to their permanent re-location to Israel.

Ever resilient, David Littman overcame a speech defect (i.e., stuttering), and developed into a truly gifted orator, who made countless presentations to the Orwellian-named UN Human Rights Commission (UN-HRC). These frequently memorable appearances showcased David’s erudition, valor, and wry sense of humor, while he tackled vexing and critically important issues-cynically ignored by all other UN-HRC representatives in there monomaniacal focus on Israel’s putative "abuses"-including: the first public exposures of Hamas’ 1988 charter sanctioning the jihad genocide of Israeli Jews, the related heinous advocacy by Islamic religious clerics of jihad "martyrdom operations," i.e., homicide bombings, which included the deliberate targeting of non-combatants, and Iran’s nuclear jihad genocidal aspirations toward Israel; highlighting the scourge of female genital mutilation, and its specific sanctioning, for example, by the Shafiite school of Sunni Islamic "jurisprudence," which helped elucidate, unapologetically, why this misogynistic barbarity was an overwhelming problem in Islamdom;  and the repeated exposure of mainstream institutional Islam’s efforts-via the Organization of the Islamic Conference (now Organization of Islamic Cooperation)-to impose Sharia-sanctioned abrogation of freedom of conscience and speech and nullify modern human rights constructs, founded upon the US Bill of Rights and the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

As a trained historian, and meticulous independent scholar, David was equally bold and original His recently published magnum opus, L’Exil Au Maghreb. La Condition Juive Sous L’Islam 1148-1912. [Presses De L’Université Paris-Sorbonne] Paris, 2010. 792pp.], written in collaboration with Dr. Paul Fenton, will likely remain the definitive sourcebook and analysis of the plight of Jews in North West Africa [Maghreb] under Islam between 1148-1912.

But it is a much less auspicious work by Littman (with assistance  from Professor Yehoshafat Harkabi) that captured his singular ability to quickly digest and disseminate the most urgent ideas of our era, with unmatched prescience. Littman’s updated Preface to the 4th edition (made available online) of this seminal work, "Arab Theologians on Jews and Israel," describes its origins:

In January 1971, while browsing in the library of St. Anthony’s College, Oxford University, awaiting a friend, I came across the 1970 English edition of the Proceedings of this Al Azhar Conference, published by the ‘Cairo General Organization for Government Printing Offices’. Only a few months earlier, I had met professor Yehoshafat Harkabi in Tel Aviv, author of a seminal work, Arab Attitudes to Israel (1971; Hebrew edition, 1968), who informed me of the contents of the Arab edition which he showed me, particularly the lecture by Kamal Ahmad Own on "The Jews are the Enemies of Human Life as is Evident from their Holy Book". On discovering the English translation by chance, the article by the ‘Vice-principle of Tanta Institute’ caught my eye, as well as a fascinating trove of vivid ‘explanations’ on Jihad and other theological subjects. I immediately informed Professor Harkabi and suggested that it might be a good idea to publish extracts from the 935 page edition (no official copyright was indicated) which I would prepare, and our joint introduction. It could be published by Editions de l’Avenir in Geneva and would be widely distributed by the Centre d’Information et de la Documentation sur le Moyen Orient (CID) in Geneva, recently founded, with friends, by my wife and I, whose publications we directed then.

Littman effectively captured the ugly essence of the full 935 pp. Proceedings-a modern doctrinal elaboration of  Islam’s timeless institution of jihad, sacralized Islamic Jew-hatred, and salient aspects of Islamic Law-the Sharia. Most importantly the extracts, and certainly the more extensive full Proceedings which Littman helped bring to world attention, made plain how the entire global umma, including Muslim immigrant Muslim communities living outside Islamdom sought to re-establish regional and ultimately global hegemony via jihad, beginning, axiomatically, with the jihad destruction of Israel. Thus four decades before its advent, Littman had uncovered and brought to our awareness what might aptly be described as "The Protocols of The Elders of the Arab Spring."

Upon receipt of the Mossad Hero of Silence Order, July 1, 2009, a gracious and humble David Littman commented,

Looking back, I can truly say that the best decision I ever made in my life was to marry my wife, Gisele, and the second best was to volunteer to bring out Jewish children from Morocco to Israel, via Switzerland. Our Casablanca mission remains indelible in our minds, as will this unforgettable moment here. In conclusion, I wish to quote those inspiring words of the prophet Jeremiah: "Behold, I will bring them from the north country and gather them from the coasts of the earth, and with them the blind and the lame, the woman with child . . .: a great company shall return thither. They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them . . . . And there is hope in thine end, saith the Lord; that thy children shall come again to their own border" [31:8-9]. Yes, the children of Israel have returned to "to their own border"- to the Land of Israel-and the long history of Moroccan Jewry is a special part of Israel’s unique saga, achieved with much tears, pain, and suffering, but also with joy and hope, and great expectations over the ages. The Casablanca mission remains indelibly in my mind. When I think of those days, let me say from my heart in simple Hebrew: Toda raba la Malam–

When the occasion demanded it, David could be edifying, while appropriately firm and blunt. Shortly after I met him and Gisele, they both delivered invited lectures to a group of Jewish and Muslim students at Georgetown University, who were apparently under the corrosive thrall of the University’s notorious apologist for Islam, John Esposito. With sad predictability, the craven Jewish students turned on the Littmans for simply describing the tragic consequences for non-Muslims of Islam’s living institutions of jihad and dhimmitude. Addressing a particularly strident, if cowardly Jewish student, David remonstrated,

If you continue to behave like this, you’ll perish.

Finally, David would often, albeit half in jest, exhort colleagues, quoting Shakespeare (Henry V, Act III, Scene 1),

…[S]how us here The mettle of your pasture

David Littman’s rich life example was one of enduring moral, physical, and intellectual mettle.

May his noble soul rest for eternity, in peace.

 

Andrew G. Bostom is the author of The Legacy of Jihad (Prometheus, 2005) and The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism " (Prometheus, November, 2008)

 

Originally posted at andrewbostom.org

Mainstream American Muslim Group Warns Muslims Against Working in Law Enforcement, Becoming “Pleased with a Legal System That Does Not Come from Allah”

The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) cautioned American Muslims in a 22-page Arabic-language paper in 2008 against working in law enforcement in countries which do not rule by Allah’s dictates. One of their main concerns was that such work might cause Muslims to gain love and respect for secular laws:

…there are many evils which result from working in law enforcement, the greatest of which is compelling people to obey rulings which do not come from Allah. It could also cause reverence and love for these rulings to enter the heart of the police officer, and perhaps spread to the hearts of his family members and other Muslims who see him at the mosque or even Muslims in general. They could lose conviction of governance by Allah, and become pleased with a legal system that does not come from Allah. (italics added)

AMJA provided some allowances for Muslims to work in certain law enforcement professions, fearing that a lack of Muslim representation in this sector could bring negative effects for the Muslim community. They also reasoned that Muslims working as police officers might be able to use their positions to help the Muslim community, such as helping out with traffic near their mosques and protecting their mosques. Still, there was concern that some of these might be required to enforce laws contrary to the shari’a, such as "arrest[ing] a Muslim man whose wife said he ‘raped’ her."

The AMJA paper specifically forbade Muslims from working for the FBI or in national security positions, due to their alleged arbitrary targeting of certain Muslims for "their political beliefs, charity work, or some of their convictions under the shari’a"–an apparent reference to counterterrorism investigations against Muslim suspects.

The paper also made clear that Muslims are to seek justice not in secular courts, but in Islamic courts which are compliant with their shari’a:  "It is not permissible to pursue justice in the man-made (i.e. non-Islamic) judiciary, except where there is an absence of a shari’a-compliant substitute capable of restoring one’s rights and working out one’s grievances" (see my translation of another AMJA paper on working in the judiciary here).

Throughout the paper it is made clear that the duty of Muslims is not to uphold and respect the laws of the land in which they reside, but rather to do everything in their power to make the laws of Allah–the shari’a–supreme:

[Muslims are] to seek through legal means which exist in the countries in which they reside to make it possible for themselves to seek legal recourse in their shar’ia, and (not only) for personal affairs.

The duty to make Islam supreme comes above all, even preserving one’s life:

We must remember that preserving the religion comes before preserving one’s self, mind, wealth, honor, or offspring. […] But if saving [the individual’s] life destroys Islam, then saving Islam comes first, even if it means the individual is destroyed. This is the case with jihad against the infidels, and the killing of apostates, and so forth.

It is worth stressing once again that AMJA–whose stated purpose is to "clarify the rulings of the sharia which are relevant for those who live in America"–is a mainstream American Muslim organization. Their membership list contains a large number of highly-influential American imams and Muslim leaders, including Muhammad al-Majid of the Adam Center in Virginia; Hussein Hamed Hassan, director of the financial consultancy firm which advises Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and other large American banking institutions; Zulfiqar Ali Shah, former president of Islamic Circle of North America and current executive director of the Fiqh Council of North America; and the author of this paper, Dr. Hatem al-Haj, MD, PhD, a fellow at the American Academy of Pediatrics, and founder and president of "Building Blocks of Islam."

Read the full story at Translating Jihad…