Tag Archives: Muslim Brotherhood

Why the Campaign to Silence Frank Gaffney?

“If you’re not taking flak, you’re not over the target.” So my brave friends who were Navy pilots used to say, when I was safe at sea on a submarine. After many years of standing against America’s enemies, first in wartime and then in national politics, I find that observation apt when hysterical charges are hurled at some fearless truth-teller.

A fusillade directed at the messenger usually signals that someone is desperate to silence his message before the rest of us wake up to danger. Nothing gives a disrupter the upper hand, as Saul Alinsky said in “Rules for Radicals,” like isolating, stigmatizing, demonizing, discrediting, and thus “freezing” a troublesome opponent.

Such is the explanation, I believe, for the relentless stream of smears and sneers against my friend and fellow Reaganite conservative, my comrade in arms in the battle for the free world, Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy.

So here is the truth as I know it firsthand. Here is the Frank Gaffney that the Left and the Islamists are frantic to prevent Americans from hearing, so much do they fear his testimony.

Watchman on the Wall

The Frank Gaffney I know is an American patriot with a record of service to his country over the past forty years, both at senior levels of government under President Reagan and, subsequently, in the non-governmental public policy arena. Over that time, his positions and prescriptions have engendered more than their share of controversy and ad hominem attacks.

Why is that? I submit it has been because he was recognizing and calling for action on problems that were at the time widely unacknowledged or misunderstood. Yet he has been proven right again and again – a vindication in which, as Frank has remarked to some of us, he takes no satisfaction, as it would have been far better for the country if his warnings were not borne out.

The attacks on Gaffney have been especially virulent in connection with Islamic supremacism, a frequent subject of his writings, media appearances, and the work of the non-profit policy research organization he founded in 1988, the Center for Security Policy (CSP).

Starting before 9/11, and intensifying since then, CSP’s efforts to sound the alarm about the rise of the global jihad movement, about the various ways in which it pursues the triumph worldwide of its animating ideology, shariah, and about how those techniques might be most effectively countered, have infuriated Islamists.

They and some others, particularly on the Left, have found it easier to denounce the “watchman on the wall,” rather than challenge the substance of the factual information Frank Gaffney and his colleagues have presented.

Connections Exposed

This has been particularly true in connection with the research the Gaffney team has conducted on the Muslim Brotherhood and what it calls the “civilization jihad” – that Islamist organization’s stealthy, subversive effort to “destroy Western civilization from within.”

Those are the very words of a top Brotherhood operative in the group’s 1991 internal document, Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal of the Group in North America – which was introduced by federal prosecutors in the largest terrorism financing trial in the nation’s history, U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation. (Its full text is available here.)

The effort Frank Gaffney has led to thwart the sort of influence operations described in the Explanatory Memorandum has presented extensive – but all-too-often unexamined – evidence of Islamic supremacist penetration of both Republican and Democratic circles.

That evidence identified, on the Right, as one enabler of such penetration, Grover Norquist, the ubiquitous conservative organizer – and on the Left, among others, Huma Abedin, an individual with extensive personal and family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood who has been influentially positioned, through her close association with Hillary Clinton, to shape American policy.

It’s hardly surprising that, as these and other connections were exposed, the Muslim Brotherhood has resorted to ever more strident attacks on Gaffney. If even half of them were believed, he would have little remaining credibility.

Yet I can attest, having known and worked with Gaffney over the years, that he is unfailingly scrupulous in his methods, forthcoming in sharing the facts behind his analyses and those of the Center for Security Policy, and persuasive in explaining the conclusions drawn. His enemies, however, brook no such discussion or dialogue. They are bent on simply silencing him, from motives that are easy to infer.

Now, in rebuttal to some of the anti-Gaffney faction’s most lurid allegations and farthestfetched charges, it’s time for a detailed look at what is actually true and what’s not:

Q.1: Is Frank Gaffney a conspiracy theorist?

A.1: He is nothing of the kind. Gaffney deals in realities, not theories. There’s a simple difference between someone obsessed with wild unfounded fears of nefarious plots, and someone needfully warning about an actual and dangerous conspiracy (for there are such things, as history shows). The difference comes down to facts.

Frank Gaffney and the Center for Security Policy he founded in 1988 have spent nearly three decades marshalling those very facts – facts about the plans and activities of America’s very real enemies, foreign and domestic.

Mockery can’t wish those enemies away. The scoffers either are unfamiliar with the realities and the prodigious work done by the CSP team to document them, or simply hope to discourage others from evaluating them and taking appropriate actions in response.

That is particularly true with respect to the admitted and determined conspiracy that has been a prime focus of Frank Gaffney’s and CSP’s work since before 9/11: The “civilization jihad” being mounted by the Muslim Brotherhood for the explicit purpose of “destroying Western civilization from within…so that Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Documentation that this conspiracy to impose sharia worldwide has been underway in the United States since the early 1960s has been verified by the U.S. Department of Justice and established in federal court in the Holy Land Foundation prosecution of 2008.

Introduced into evidence in the course of that trial was a secret plan laying out that mission and the stealthy, subversive techniques by which it has been pursued for decades. This strategic plan, known as the Explanatory Memorandum, was written in 1991 by a top Muslim Brotherhood operative, Mohamed Akhram.

This Memorandum explicitly describes the Brotherhood’s conspiracy to penetrate and subvert America’s civil society institutions and government agencies. The Center for Security Policy has published ten books and monographs in recent years documenting the conspirators’ success in executing that seditious strategy. (These products can be downloaded for free at SecureFreedom.org.) The willful blindness or deliberate deceptions of those who deprecate this work is no excuse for responsible Americans to do the same.

Conspiracy theorist? Hardly. I see Frank Gaffney more as a modern-day Paul Revere, urgently working to awaken his countrymen to the rising threat before it’s too late.

Q.2: Is Frank Gaffney a racist, bigot, hater, or Islamophobe?

A.2: None of those, not by any stretch of the imagination. Gaffney has indeed been called all these names, usually by Islamic supremacists and those on the Left who consort with the Islamists and enable their anti-American agenda. Leading the charge has been the once-respected Southern Poverty Law Center.

Strangely, SPLC has abandoned its former mission of protecting civil rights and become little more than a fundraising machine and instrument for political warfare against conservatives and other patriotic Americans, including Frank Gaffney and the Center for Security Policy.

Frank tells people that far from being consumed with hate, he is motivated by love – love of this country and our way of life, our Constitution and the freedoms it guarantees. It is a sad irony that a group like the SPLC, whose initial raison d’etre was defending those freedoms, is now willingly used by liberty’s sharia-adherent enemies to try to suppress or destroy it, starting with freedom of speech.

Q.3: Does Frank Gaffney claim that Barack Obama is a Muslim?

A.3: Absolutely not. Gaffney and CSP have no more definitive information about President Obama’s religious beliefs than everyone else (although boyhood school records do list him as a Muslim, according to reports in the Associated Press and the Los Angeles Times).

Gaffney is on record as having repeatedly said that the important thing is not what Obamaprofesses in faith, but what he is doing in policy with the effect of enabling Islamic supremacists who threaten Americans and their vital interests.

The false charge that Frank Gaffney has labeled Obama as a Muslim seems to stem to from selective quotations from one of his 2009 Washington Times columns with the following lede paragraph, quoted here in its entirety:

During his White House years, William Jefferson Clinton — someone Judge Sonia Sotomayor might call a “white male” — was dubbed “America’s first black president” by a black admirer. Applying the standard of identity politics and pandering to a special interest that earned Mr. Clinton that distinction, Barack Hussein Obama would have to be considered America’s first Muslim president. This is not to say, necessarily, that Mr. Obama actually is a Muslim any more than Mr. Clinton actually is black. (Emphasis added.)

Gaffney proceeded to emphasize, as he has done repeatedly before and since, that it is notthe president’s religion that matters, but his policies:

Whether Mr. Obama actually is a Muslim or simply plays one in the presidency may, in the end, be irrelevant. What is alarming is that in aligning himself and his policies with those of 5 Sharia-adherents such as the Muslim Brotherhood, the president will greatly intensify the already enormous pressure on peaceful, tolerant American Muslims to submit to such forces – and heighten expectations, here and abroad, that the rest of us will do so as well.

Undiplomatic? No doubt. Provocative? Quite purposely. But not a word of untruth, an iota of hyperbole, or a scintilla of illogic. Just blunt as a bulldog and honest as daylight; that’s my friend Frank.

Q.4: Has Frank Gaffney contended that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, like the so-called “birthers”?

A.4: Never. Gaffney has no firsthand knowledge of President Obama’s birthplace and has never asserted he did. He did make, in October 2008, some factual observations relevant to the debate then occurring about candidate Obama’s personal history, just ahead of that year’s presidential election.

“Another question yet to be resolved,” noted Gaffney, “is whether Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States, a prerequisite pursuant to the U.S. Constitution. There is evidence Mr. Obama was born in Kenya rather than, as he claims, Hawaii.”

He was referring to evidence that had surfaced that Mr. Obama was born in Kenya, including a 1998 client list for his publicist, then called Jane Dystel Literary Management.

So Gaffney wasn’t citing allegations by the future president’s detractors, but statements by Obama’s own representatives, whose born-in-Kenya claims dated both from that 1998 document and from an earlier 1991 booklet issued by what was then known as Acton & Dystel. This evidence may have been less than conclusive, and it was denied by Obama and his defenders, but there it is in the public record.

The same is true of another piece of evidentiary data, of which Gaffney wrote in 2008: “There is also a registration document for a school in Indonesia where the would-be president studied for four years, on which he was identified not only as a Muslim, but as an Indonesian.” The registration can be seen in this document from SD Katolik Santo Fransiskus Asisi, a Catholic school in Jakarta.

As Frank remarked to me during preparation of this white paper, “While the question of where Barack Obama was born and his eligibility to serve as our 44th president was once material, it certainly isn’t any longer. What’s needed now is a laser-focus on the attributes and policy predilections of those who would be our 45th chief executive.”

Q.5: Did Frank Gaffney say it was treasonous for Gov. Chris Christie to appoint a Muslim attorney to a New Jersey judgeship?

A.5: He did not say that. Gaffney’s criticism of various actions by Christie, before he became governor and since, though sharp, never took that form. In 2008, for example, Frank strongly disagreed with Christie, then a federal prosecutor, for dispatching his deputy to testify as a character witness for a virulent Islamic supremacist, Imam Mohammed Qatanani, during deportation proceedings being conducted by the Department of Homeland Security.

That intervention contributed to Qatanani, whom Christie has called his “friend,” being allowed to remain in this country, endearing the would-be governor to the Muslim Brotherhood and those Muslim voters in New Jersey under its sway.

Once in office in 2011, Gov. Christie appointed to the state judiciary Qatanani’s Islamist lawyer, Sohail Mohammed – a man who had worked for the American Muslim Union (AMU), an organization with close ties to Hamas. The governor responded to widespread criticism in New Jersey and beyond by lashing out at his critics as racists and bigots, the sort of ad hominem attacks generally employed by Islamic supremacists and their leftist allies.

It was then that Frank Gaffney, interviewing Andrew McCarthy on Gaffney’s syndicated radio show, asked the former federal prosecutor whether knowingly appointing a person to the bench who had been associated with a front for a designated terrorist group could be considered “misprision of treason” – i.e., ignoring, and thereby enabling, treasonous activity. A tough question, but under the circumstances a fair one. A reasonable inquiry on points of law, not an accusation.

Q.6: Did Frank Gaffney claim that a logo redesign at the U.S. Missile Defense Agency must reflect Obama’s Muslim views?

A.6: Certainly not. This canard arose when Gaffney wrote a February 24, 2010, column for Breitbart.com titled, “Could This Possibly Be True?”. It made a teachable moment of an assertion circulating at the time on the Internet that the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) had recently adopted a new logo that appeared eerily to combine the colors and themes of Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign logo with the crescent moon symbol of Islam.

The point of the column was not that the imagined provenance of the new MDA symbol was true – it subsequently was established not to be – but, rather, that the Obama administration was, in any case, wreaking havoc on the nation’s missile defense programs, accommodating Iran’s nuclear ambitions, adopting Islamist memes, and otherwise accommodating Islamic supremacists. Regrettably, each of those points have proven to be true.

In addition, the indignant voices raised against Gaffney’s logo column predictably ignored an awkward fact that came to light a few weeks later. It turns out that President Obama did direct an agency involved with rockets and space to embrace his determined effort to curry favor with Muslims. It’s just that it was the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, not the Missile Defense Agency.

Americans were left scratching their heads when NASA Director Charles Bolden announced on June 30, 2010, that he had been “charged” by the President “perhaps foremost” with finding “a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.”

The tactic of pounding the table and changing the subject when you have a weak case has seldom been better illustrated than by apologists for Barack Obama’s soft stance toward the global jihad movement. It’s much easier for them, obviously, to focus on demonizing the Frank Gaffneys of the world than to justify to a puzzled public their President’s belief that he has a “responsibility… to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam.” What?

Q.7: Did Frank Gaffney accuse Huma Abedin, a key staffer for Hillary Clinton, of being a terrorist?

A.7: Never, and any such claim is but another instance of Islamist apologists throwing dust in the air to distract people’s attention. However, Gaffney is indeed one of those – including, again, counter-jihad expert and former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy – who have documented the extensive personal and family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood of Secretary Clinton’s long-time aide, Huma Abedin.

These ties are symbolized by the identification for some twelve years of Ms. Abedin as an associate editor on the masthead of the journal of her family’s business, the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA). This institute was set up first in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia under the sponsorship of and with resources from the Saudi-financed World Muslim League that were secured by a top Muslim Brotherhood operative and al Qaeda financier: Abdullah Omar Naseef. For at least seven years, Naseef’s name was listed as a member of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs’ advisory board, close by that of Ms. Abedin.

Interestingly, the mission of the IMMA is to promote the Brotherhood goal of discouraging assimilation by Muslims in non-Muslim nations. As has been evident from a string of recent horrors in Europe, keeping Muslims separate from the larger population facilitates efforts to foster memes of alienation, grievance and victimhood – and the sharia-adherence, miscalled “radicalization,” that often flows from such narratives.

Insofar as the United States government has yet to designate the Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, Huma Abedin can’t be strictly considered as terrorist-linked. Her long association with that organization would, however, qualify her to be considered a civilization jihadist.

Which ought to concern Americans more – the ominous closeness of so suspect a person to someone who may well be our next president, or the Center for Security Policy’s alleged impoliteness in asking pointed questions about such a woman?

Q.8: Did Frank Gaffney claim Grover Norquist is gay?

A.8: He certainly did not, nor does that matter interest him in the slightest. But the wellconnected Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and an NRA board member, has been repeatedly called out by Gaffney as an enabler of the Muslim Brotherhood’s stealthy subversion of the United States. The factual basis for that charge is laid out in a dossier published by the Center for Security Policy under the title, Agent of Influence: Grover Norquist and the Assault on the Right.

Among those who have attested to the damning nature of that evidence are former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey, former Congressman Allen West, former Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Fleet Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Lieutenant General William “Jerry” Boykin and former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy.

As Gaffney put it in a letter to General Mukasey (published in its entirety in the fourth edition of Agent of Influence):

I have endeavored throughout the seventeen years in which I have raised an alarm about Mr. Norquist’s conduct [with respect to his longstanding and ongoing relationship with individuals and organizations tied to the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist causes] to address that conduct – not the individual in question’s personal affairs or activities. Claims to the contrary are baseless. The issue is what he has done, and is doing, in his professional capacity.

Q.9: Was Frank Gaffney or the Center for Security Policy banned from attending the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), or from speaking there?

A.9: Never. According to Dan Schneider, Executive Director of the American Conservative Union, which runs the annual conference, “Neither Frank Gaffney nor the Center for Security Policy has ever been banned from attending CPAC.”

Falsehoods to the contrary stem from moves by Grover Norquist and one of his Muslim Brotherhood-associated colleagues, Suhail Khan, to retaliate against Gaffney for the 9 latter’s efforts to expose and counter their Islamist-enabling influence operations. Both have repeatedly used their influence with the American Conservative Union, the Council for National Policy, Coalitions for America, the Washington Times, and other organizations to attempt to silence and ostracize Gaffney.

Regardless, Frank Gaffney and the Center for Security Policy did participate actively in CPAC 2016, just as they did at CPAC in previous years. Additionally, Gaffney was honored with the George Washington Military Leadership Award from the Council for National Policy in 2016 and with the Stephen H. Long Award from the Western Conservative Summit in 2015. And he remains a member in good standing of the Conservative Action Project. Norquist’s allies’ efforts to marginalize and silence Gaffney have, in short, failed.

Q.10: A final question, then: Has any one American taken more flak from Islamists and the Left, with less justification, than Frank Gaffney?

A.10: No one that I know of. Indeed, few others are even close. Unrelenting, undeserved abuse has surely been heaped upon such brave truth-tellers against jihad and shariah as Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum, and Congressman Peter King of New York.

Brigitte Gabriel endures intense hatred, unbowed. Pamela Geller survived a jihadi attempt on her life. So did the ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who is not actually an American but an asylum-seeker on these shores after having to flee both her native country of Somalia and her adopted homeland of the Netherlands.

But Gaffney has been the object of a more sustained barrage from Islamists and the Left than all of them. What should hearten him and them, amid the storm, is that this treatment from those forces can only be worn as a badge of honor. Because, remember: if you’re not taking flak, you’re not over the target.

So my concluding personal word of encouragement and commendation to you, Frank Gaffney, is simply to say, “Be of good cheer, my friend, and stay on task. Stay on target!”

###

John Andrews has been president of the Colorado Senate, founder of the Western Conservative Summit, and an appointee of four Republican presidents. He currently leads a newly formed citizens advocacy group, Americans for America, and chairs the Center for Security Policy’s Counter-Jihad Advisory Board.

London Mayoral Candidate Shadiq Khan’s Background Raises Concerns

On May 5, 2016, Londoners will cast their votes for the next Mayor of London as current Mayor Boris Johnson ends his eight-year term. The projected favorite to win the election is Shadiq Khan representing the Labor Party and has been involved in British politics for the past decade. While Khan’s political qualifications may be strong enough to be mayor his personal affiliations with Islamist imams, defending 9/11 terrorists, and being supported by noted anti-Semites has raised serious questions about his agenda and suitability.

Khan has been embroiled in a  political campaign against Zac Goldsmith, the son of billionaire Sir James Goldsmith. Goldsmith’s campaign has emphasized Khan’s connections to Islamists, and linked him to a growing Labor Party scandal of numerous Labor members being exposed for anti-Semitism.

The Labor Party has accused Goldsmith of running a campaign based on Islamophobia because he is behind in the polls.

In 2001, Khan was the attorney for the Nation of Islam and its founder  anti-Semite and racist Louis Farrakhan in a successful bid to overturn a 15-year ban the U.K. put on him for his racist and hateful ideology.  While Khan admits he represented “unsavory people” as a human rights lawyer he also admitted “even the worst people deserve legal representation.”

Between 2005-2006 Khan visited Babar Ahmad who pled guilty to terrorism charges of conspiracy and providing material support for the Taliban. Kahn campaigned for the repatriation of U.K. Guantanamo detainee Shaker Aamer who was released and returned to the U.K. in November 2015. In addition, Khan was associated with the advocacy group CAGE, which has been linked to terrorists, who called Islamic State (IS) executioner Mohammed Emwazi AKA Jihadi John,  a “beautiful young man.”

Khan was also linked to being at a sex-segregated political meeting entitled “Palestine-The Suffering Still Goes On” with five jihadist leaders that made women use a separate entrance. The leaders were linked from supporting terrorists groups, condoned violence against Israel and British forces, women should be subservient to men, and claimed homosexuality was a sin and homosexuals should be stoned to death.

Khan’s defense of Muslims over terrorism has also led many Londoners to question where his loyalties lie. After the 7/7 London bombings he said it was U.K. foreign policy that made the country a target for terrorists. He was a legal defense consultant of 9/11 terrorist Zacharias Moussaoui, wrote a chapter in a book called “Actions Against the Police” in how to sue for racism, and shared a stage with Suliman Gani, a South London jihadist imam, who called for women to be subservient to men and for the creation of an Islamic caliphate. Khan has also refused to answer questions in regard to women wearing their hijab when interacting with public service providers.

Some have compared Khan to Luftur Rahman, the former Mayor of Tower Hamlets, a London Borough known for it’s high Muslim population. Rahman had close ties to the Islamic Forum of Europe, an Islamist group linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-e-Islami. IFE has openly supported a Sharia law based Islamic state.

Rahman was eventually found guilty of engaging in corrupt and illegal practices, and covering them up by accusing opponents and journalists of “islamophobia.”

Nearly one-third of all Londoners are suspicious of having a Muslim mayor, a distrust that seems to come at least in part from the history of other British Muslim politicians being elected only to be exposed for radical ties, including Rahman, Humza Yousef, Shabana Mahmood, and Sayeeda Warsi.

Given current polls, Khan is projected to win.

Ikhwan in America: An Oral History of the Muslim Brotherhood in Their Own Words

Ikhwan_in_America

CENTER RELEASES ACCOUNT BY TOP MUSLIM BROTHER OF HIS ORGANIZATION’S PLANS AND PREPARATIONS FOR JIHAD IN AMERICA

The Center for Security Policy is proud to announce the second release in its Archival Series, Ikhwan in America: An Oral History of the Muslim Brotherhood in their Own Words.

Like the first volume in this series, The Explanatory Memorandum: From the Archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in America, this new volume provides context for the needed, far deeper understanding of the true nature of the Muslim Brotherhood (known as the Ikhwan in Arabic). It does so by making accessible an original source document – along with an evaluation of its ideological, historical and organizational significance to equip our countrymen and women, and their elected representatives, to make informed decisions about one of the most serious threats facing our country: the Islamic supremacist enemies within.

“Ikhwan in America” was the title given an early 1980s lecture about the Muslim Brotherhood by a man who was at the time one of the organization’s most prominent leaders: the chief masul (“guide”) of its executive office, Zaid Naman (a.k.a. Zeid Noman). The audience were participants in a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood camp in Missouri.

The audio of the lecture was found, translated and transcribed by the FBI. It was discovered in 2004 during a search of the home of another U.S. Muslim Brotherhood leader, Ismail Elbarasse. At the time it was raided, Elbarasse’s property held what amounted to the archives of the Brotherhood in North America..

Many of those documents, including The Explanatory Memorandum, only became available to the public when they were entered into evidence in support of the government’s 2007-2008 case against the Holy Land Foundation (HLF). The HLF was a Muslim Brotherhood front that masqueraded as a charitable organization. In fact, it engaged in, anFirefoxScreenSnapz081d was convicted of, material support for a designated terrorist organization, Hamas.

Among the many pieces of evidence made available by the government in the Holy Land trial, Naman’s lecture carries special significance since it represents a first-hand account, in the words of one of the Brotherhood’s top leaders, of the Ikhwan’s history and stealthy “civilization jihad” in this country.

Naman covers both the organization’s highs and lows here, from the early successes in establishing the Muslim Students Association and Islamic centers throughout the country, to struggles and infighting that finally led to the forging of a more united U.S. Muslim Brotherhood with its counterparts from many other countries.

The Center for Security Policy’s President Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. said upon the publication of Ikhwan in America:

The production of this transcription of Zaid Naman’s authoritative account of the Muslim Brotherhood in our country is especially timely. After all, it coincides with the consideration by the U.S. Congress of legislation calling for the Brotherhood’s designation as a terrorist organization for its role in fomenting jihadist violence.

Naman’s lecture explicitly discusses the Brotherhood’s equipping its members to engage in so called “Special Work,” meaning armed violence, and training its members in the use of firearms for that purpose – statements directly at odds with the Brotherhood professed commitment to nonviolence. It should be required reading for every legislator and other official with the sworn duty to protect our nation and its Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Hillary Clinton’s Muslim Brotherhood Problem

On March 24th, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton put in an appearance in Los Angeles that perfectly captured one of the most problematic facets of her checkered public service. Seated next to a prominent Islamic supremacist with longstanding ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, she nodded like a bobbing-head doll as he dissembled about Islam, fraudulently professed a commitment to “partnership” with law enforcement to prevent radicalization, and criticized those who know better.

Unfortunately, Mrs. Clinton has all-too-often been an enthusiastic supporter of those likeMuslim Public Affairs Council president Salam al-Marayati as they seek to dominate their fellow Muslims (notably in places like Egypt, Libya and Syria) and subvert the United States and the rest of the Free World with what the Brothers call “civilization jihad.”

This serious betrayal of U.S. national interests has surely been encouraged by Clinton’s association with and reliance upon Huma Abedin, a woman with her own, well-documented personal and family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Huma’s involvement as a chief lieutenant to Mrs. Clinton going back to Hillary’s days as First Lady has undoubtedly contributed to the latter’s affinity for the organization.

The following are illustrative examples of how that affinity translated into action during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State – a period in which she and President Obama sought serially to embrace, legitimate and empower the Muslim Brotherhood:

  • Hillary Clinton also personally approved the policy of formally engaging with the Muslim Brotherhood.
  • Clinton played a leading role in developing and executing Obama administration initiatives aimed at bringing the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Syria.
  • Hillary Clinton was personally involved in advancing the Muslim Brotherhood/Organization of Islamic Cooperation agenda aimed at prohibiting “defamation of Islam/religion.” On her watch, the United States supported the approval of a UN Human Rights Council Resolution for that purpose: UNHC Res. 16/18.
  • Clinton also subsequently launched and presided over the “Istanbul Process” to advance the implementation of Res. 16/18’s call for the criminalization of such defamation. In July 2011, she pledged that, in the United States, we would use “some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel they have the support to do what we abhor” – an unmistakable threat to freedom of expression.
  • That objective of restricting speech that “offends” Muslims was also explicitly served by the fraudulent meme that Clinton, among other administration officials, promoted concerning Benghazi: a “hateful” online video caused the riot that resulted in the murderous attack on U.S. facilities there on September 11, 2012. Publicly disclosed emails have revealed that Huma Abedin, and Rashad Hussein, the special envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, were tasked with impressing upon the OIC that they were countering the dissemination of offensive materials.
  • Hillary Clinton’s State Department was involved in shutting down an investigation into the personnel and activities of Tablighi Jamaat – the Deobandi “missionary” group out of Pakistan, two of whose followers were responsible for the jihadist attack in San Bernardino in December 2015. The chief investigator, Philip Haney,believes that, had that inquiry not been terminated and all of its data purged, those murders may well have been prevented.

Al-Marayati and his organization have also been closely associated with the Muslim Brotherhood and its “civilization jihad” aimed at promoting sharia in the United States. MPAC was founded by two top Brothers, Hassan and Maher Hathout, and it has worked closely ever since with the Hamas-tied Council on American Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America and other Brotherhood fronts.

In the course of the roundtable with Mrs. Clinton and LA’s mayor, al-Marayati demonstrated his true, Islamic supremacist colors by engaging in classic taqiyya – the Islamists’ well-honed practice of dissembling for the faith. For example, he selectively quoted from the Quran to differentiate between the teachings of Islam and the practices of the Islamic State. He also promoted such favorite Brotherhood themes as “the mosques are not the centers of radicalization” and that “violent extremism” is the threat, not Islam’s jihadism.

For her part, Hillary Clinton used the roundtable to propound the myth that Muslims like al-Marayati are not given enough “platforms” to disavow jihadism. The real problem, though, is that organizations like MPAC and their spokesmen are given plenty of outlets – by the government and the U.S. media – but choose not to use them for the purpose of disassociating their community from those who faithfully adhere to sharia and seek to impose it on the rest of us.

Of course, given their true purpose – Islamic supremacism – the al-Marayatis and MPACs cannot authentically do that. After all, like Islamists the world over, they actually share that agenda and are working, albeit through stealthy, “civilization jihadist” means, to secure its triumph here. No Commander-in-Chief, actual or prospective, should be “partnering” with those advancing such a purpose.

Kansas Congressman Takes Stand Against Hamas Fundraiser

A Muslim Brotherhood-linked Mosque has cancelled its fundraiser with a known Hamas supporter, thanks to Congressional pressure.

Representative Mike Pompeo (R-KS) issued a press release urging the Islamic Society of Wichita to re-think its decision to host Monzer Taleb, a Texas-based Islamic leader with ties to Hamas.

“I am profoundly disappointed and disturbed by both the content and the timing of the Islamic Society of Wichita’s decision to bring Sheik Monzer Talib to Wichita, Kansas.  On one of the most holy days on the Christian calendar, and only days after radical Islamic extremists murdered dozens of innocents of many faiths in Brussels, Belgium, they chose to bring a Hamas-connected sheik to their community center here in Wichita.  They should cancel his appearance.”

Monzer Taleb was an unindicted Co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Trial, identified by Federal prosecutors as a member of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee, a covert U.S. MB organization with a responsibility for supporting and financing Hamas. Taleb was identified in a captured Palestine Committee document as a member of organization.As a member of the Al Sakhra Band, Taleb helped to raise funds for Hamas at fundraisers thrown by the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) and the Islamic Association for Palestine. (IAP), two organizations created by the Palestine Committee to support Hamas, according to evidence provided by the federal government.

When not performing musical hits like, “I am from Hamas” (as documented by videotape entered into evidence as Elbarasse Search 32 Video-F) Taleb worked as an employee for InfoCom, a Texas-based computer company that was also convicted the federal government for material support for Hamas. InfoCom’s chief investor was Palestine Committee leader and now Deputy Chairman of Hamas Mousa Abu Marzook.

Monzer Taleb appears to remain active in the fundraising business, raising funds for Helping Hands for Relief and Development (HHRD), a charity accused of having close ties to a Pakistani organization known to have financed Hamas. Taleb is additionally listed as a member of HHRD-Jordan. Taleb also fundraises for the Islamic Association of North Texas (IANT), which runs Dallas Central Mosque, which was closely associated with the Holy Land Foundation, and has long been identified as having ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

It’s somewhat surprising that ISW bowed to pressure, given its own MB ties.

Founding member of the ISW, Jihad Qaddour, was the long time treasurer of the Muslim American Society (MAS), a group described by federal prosecutors as the “overt arm” of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States. According to the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Watch, Jihad Qaddour’s name also appears in a Muslim Brotherhood document, identified as Elbarasse Search-4, as a member of the group’s Shura Council.

Congratulations are in order for Rep. Mike Pompeo for taking this firm stand.

FBI Edits Radical Islam Out of Anti-Terror Video Game: Who Is the Real ‘Puppet’?

The FBI has released a new edition of its anti-terror video game,Don’t Be a Puppet, that conforms to demands from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to exclude Islamic jihad from a list of potential terror threats.

In the game, a player is asked to work through a series of numbered boxes, beginning with “What is Violent Extremism?” and finishing with “Who [sic] Do Violent Extremists Affect?” Completing the activities in each box — watching short videos, reading through short texts, taking a quick quiz — allows the player, string-by-string, to free the puppet.

Despite the fact that Islamic jihadist violence ranks at the very top of global security concerns, though, it is not mentioned anywhere in the FBI’s puppet game. Instead, the game offers a psycho-babble of possible motivations including alienation, anxiety, personal frustration, and an unsupported claim about “twist[ing] religious teachings and other beliefs to support their own goals.” Anyone who actually perseveres through the game is left with the curious sense that they have just passed a Psych 101 class rather than learned anything substantive about Islamic terror.

Execrable grammar aside, Don’t Be A Puppet, does raise some important questions about who is the real puppet here — and who is the puppeteer. The FBI originally released the online game in early February 2016 but then, under pressure from CAIR, decided to scrub all references to Islamic terrorism (aka jihad) from the website. The new and improved version now focuses on animal rights activists, white supremacists, and other “violent extremists” approved for mention by the Muslim Brotherhood.

FBI leadership – as well as top officials at the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice, the National Security Council, and the White House – all know that the Ku Klux Klan was dismantled decades ago and that animal rights activists will never threaten the existence of the Republic. They also know that CAIR is not a suitable partner in anti-terror operations. The FBI (officially) cut ties with CAIR in 2009, calling the group “not an appropriate liaison partner” because of its ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, a subversive jihadist organization committed to “destroy the Western civilization from within.” CAIR not only was directly established in the U.S. by HAMAS, but remains closely affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood as part of the Global Islamic Movement. Although obviously done for political, not actual security reasons (as CAIR has no presence there), the United Arab Emirates designated CAIR to its list of terrorist organizations in November 2014.

That the FBI thinks it appropriate to take advice from an organization linked to Hamas, a group openly dedicated to jihad (“warfare against non-Muslims…to establish the religion”) indicates an advanced stage of infiltration by such forces inside the top levels of U.S. national security. That the FBI submits to blatant pressure in a way that strips an already ludicrous effort at counterterrorism of all relevance in a world being savaged by terrorists acting in obedience to Islamic doctrine only makes it worse.

And while we’re on the subject: what precisely is “Violent Extremism” anyway?

The FBI apparently would have us believe it has something to do with some people, somewhere, who “have very different beliefs and goals” and may be “loosely motivated” by “personal needs, fears and frustrations”… or something. All clear now?

Let us be clear: this level of incoherence is the intended result of a decades-long influence operation by the Muslim Brotherhood in America, which obviously has succeeded in turning the brains of our top counterterrorism experts to mush. Brilliant scholar of Islamic law Stephen Coughlin calls it “Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad” in his recent book of that title. And it is catastrophic failure, the overt indicator of subversion at the highest levels of the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC). As Coughlin notes, such failure is in fact dereliction of duty by the IC. It would be prosecuted were there anyone left in the Department of Justice willing and able to name the Global Jihadist enemy, indict, or prosecute the lot of them.

Once the IC allowed itself to be lured away from what used to be called the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) in the wake of 9/11, and instead listened to the insidious voices of Islamic dawah, the course was set. A Great Purge of the official lexicon gathered acceptance, and words like Caliphate, Islamic terror, and jihad, along with any instructors knowledgeable about Islamic doctrine, law, and scripture, and their inspirational role in instigating Islamic terrorism, were literally removed from official use and the training curricula inside the U.S. government.

By studiously ignoring a force responsible for at least 28,000 attacks worldwide since September 2001 and instead turning its focus to irrelevant distractions like the FBI’s silly wooden puppet, the U.S. IC is losing ground by the day to the Islamic Republic of Iran (now on the verge of deploying nuclear weapons), Al-Qa’eda (now massively metastasized), the Islamic State (practically weekly receiving new pledges of bayat), and yes, the Muslim Brotherhood, whose tentacles reach deep inside the entire structure of U.S. national security from the White House to Local Law Enforcement (LLE), that must confront a surge of individual jihad (fard ‘ayn) attacks against its communities without knowing why or how to stop them.

It is high time for the FBI puppet to cut the strings that tie it to its Muslim Brotherhood puppeteer, stop letting jihadis pull its strings, and become a real counterjihad warrior.

IS Strengthening its Presence in Gaza

Breitbart Jerusalem reports that the Israeli Treasury Department is applying sanctions on three IS leaders tied to financing operations. One of these leaders was Husayn Juaythini, who facilitated the communications and movement of foreign fighters as well as conducted financial activities in support of IS. Juaythini was responsible for creating a base of operations within Gaza, and it appears he has been successful.

A base in Gaza allows IS to launch attacks against Israel, as they have done on several occasions. IS already has a branch in Egypt, the Islamic State in the Sinai (ISS), which despite initially being created as a jihadist group to attack Israel predominantly focuses on fighting the Egyptian government. If IS is able to establish a strong enough branch in Gaza, it will be able to launch attacks on Israel without taking away from their fight against El-Sisi.

IS has been able to gain a foothold into Gaza in part through cooperation with Hamas, the dominant terrorist organization in the area. ISS has been trading missile material in return for money, and it now appears Hamas may be allowing the group to operate inside its territory. Hamas has also allowed ISS to send wounded troops to Gaza for medical treatment away from the Egyptian government.

Hamas is a Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Founded in 1987, the organization’s primary goal is to bring about the destruction of Israel. To better increase its ability to combat the Israelis, Hamas established itself as one of the major political parties in the Palestinian territories, and since 2007 it has been dominated politics in the region.

The Free Fire Blog discussed the cooperation between the Islamic State (IS) and Hamas in the past, and this cooperation may be expanding as IS has been reportedly establishing a base in the Gaza region.

Hamas was originally hostile to IS’s presence in Gaza, but IS has reportedly gained support in Gaza, following a series of attacks on Israel. Hamas, which has not wanted to provoke another conflict with Israel, began to crack down on IS supporters. One IS sympathizer was killed during the crackdown, but relations between the two terror organizations simmered since then.

IS may be growing at a time when Hamas is growing weaker. Hamas specialist Johnathan Schanzer  notes a potential rift within Hamas’s ranks following the execution of former Hamas official Mahmoud Eshtiwi. Hamas leadership claimed Eshtiwi was killed for ‘‘moral and behavioral violations,’’ but never violations were never named. The new Free Qassam Members believe the execution was carried out due to Eshtiwi challenging al-Qassam Brigades leadership, and will be launching investigations into the matter.

This schism could be dangerous for Hamas if the breakaway faction joins the ranks of IS. Both groups have been able to work together, but IS may see an opportunity to gain further control of Gaza while Hamas is reorganizing.

Hamas has yet to recover from the last war with Israel, and their leadership has reportedly been locked in competition for some time. IS could be able to use this disorder to its advantage and take some control away from Hamas, or back a Hamas leader they believe to be sympathetic towards the Islamic State.

Even with Hamas still in power over Gaza, the current IS presence is a great danger to Israel. While the Gaza camp has been primarily used for training fighters and caring for wounded, it gives the group a strong strategic position against Israel. Although the Israeli Treasury Department issued sanctions against IS leaders, its unlikely to slow down the group’s growth in the region.

Libyan Military’s Successes in Benghazi Drive Fear into Illegitimate Government

Early yesterday, February 23, 2016, Libyan government forces led by Gen. Khalifa Haftar reclaimed two major sections of Benghazi, Libya’s second largest city. The government has been pushing to reclaim the city for years, and today’s victory will serve as a major morale boost and sign the government is capable to expel Islamist groups from major cities.

The government forces were reportedly met with cheers, as Islamist fighters belonging to several different jihadist groups, including Islamic State and the Al Qaeda affiliate Ansar Al Sharia were pushed out.

While this victory is a massive morale boost for the Tobruk government, it may serve as an impediment to unity talks. Gen. Haftar is a vocal opponent of all Islamist factions in Libya, including the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Libyan Dawn faction in Tripoli, which is currently engaged in unity talks with the legitimate government in Tobruk. One MP in Tripoli has called Gen. Haftar a “dictatorial coup leader.”

Further complicating the situation in Libya, Le Monde, a French newspaper, reported that French Special Forces have been actively engaged in covert operation against the Islamic State. The Huffington Post Arabic claims that the French forces are also supporting Gen. Haftar’s campaign against Islamists, but this statement is unconfirmed. Huffington Post Arabic is known to be pro-Muslim Brotherhood, and this would give them the motive to suggest any activity that could slow down Gen. Haftar’s push against Islamists.

France’s Defense Ministry declined to comment on the claims, but they will be launching an investigation into who leaked the information to Le Monde. The article also quoted a French Defense Official saying “The last thing to do would be to intervene in Libya. We must avoid any overt military engagement, but act discreetly.”

France has increased military activity in the region after establishing a military base in Northern Niger and conducting reconnaissance flights over Libya.

Even if French Special Forces have not aided Gen. Haftar, their presence in Libya will draw condemnation from the Islamist factions supporting the illegitimate Tripoli government. The Tripoli government does not want any foreign intervention to possibly hinder their progress, and they will likely continue to argue against France’s “secret war.” France could provide the support needed to help the Tobruk government reclaim more territory from the Islamists, and this would weaken the Tripoli government.

With the recent victory, the government forces may consider further putting off the unity talks as they continue to gain ground. If the Tobruk government and military can prove they are capable to defend the country from jihadists.

U.S. Targets IS in Libya Despite Ongoing Unity Talks

A U.S. airstrike targeting a major Islamic State (IS) operative, Noureddine Chouchane, may have killed upwards of 40 IS trainees in Sabratha, Libya. It is currently unconfirmed if Chouchane was among the dead.

Chouchane was a Tunisian operative of IS working out of Libya. A Western official claim reconnaissance of Chouchane’s location suggested he was involved in training recruits for what appeared to be an attack on a foreign target. The airstrike targeted a barn that is believed to have been used as the trainees’ barracks.

Aside from training foreign recruits, Chouchane was believed to have helped organize two major attacks in his home country, Tunisia. The first attack last March on the National Bardo Museum in Tunis killed 20 to 22 people. The second attack, last June, targeted a Beach Resort in Sousse killed 39.

IS has begun to establish a highly effective branch in Libya amid infighting between the Libyan Dawn, factions which seized control of the capital of Tripoli and claims political authority and the internationally recognized government in Tobruk. IS has proven to be a thorn in the side of both, as they have launched attacks on Tripoli as well as government oil terminals.

IS has established a stronghold in the towns of Sirte and Sabratha. They have held territory in the towns of Derna, Benghazi, and Ajdabiya.

The growing threat of IS has not gone unnoticed, with Egypt and the United Arab Emirates  launched successful airstrikes against IS positions in February 2015. The strikes were later criticized for the high collateral damage against Libyan civilians.

While Egypt and the U.A.E. targeted fighting positions, the U.S. has predominately targeted key terrorist leaders in Libya, both Al Qaeda, and Islamic State. Last November, U.S. launched an airstrike killing the IS leader in Libya, Abu Nabil.

The U.S. has been considering increased military action for some time. The Guardian reported on photos of U.S. Special Operations Forces in Libya who were reportedly on the ground to make contact with Libyan militias in order to determine whom to work with against IS within the divided country.

The two governments in Libya are currently engaged in talks that would unite the government. The self-proclaimed government in Tripoli ousted the legitimate government in August 2014 after losing the democratic elections. The UN has been brokering a unity agreement that would reunite these two governments, but it may be a dangerous move.

Two of the current leading parties in Tripoli, Justice and Construction Party and the Loyalty to Martyrs Bloc, are dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood. This becomes dangerous when there is rumors of a potential cooperation council between the Muslim Brotherhood, IS, and Al Qaeda within Libya. Also, Libya Dawn, the government in Tripoli’s military arm, is allied with Ansar Al-Sharia, AQ’s Libya branch.

The U.S., Egypt, Turkey, Germany, Russia, and China along with 16 other countries have signed an agreement to cut off aid to militias who do not support the deal.  The U.S. and Egypt do not want to pledge significant military support against IS until the government unites, yet IS may be gaining a position in the government if the mega-merger takes hold.

IS has been able to extend its reach all through North Africa. It is believed they have recruited upwards of 7,000 Tunisians to the fight in Syria, and these recruits are more than willing to come back home to fight. The vast numbers that IS can pull from has made targeted killings less effective.

Libya serves as a major hub for recruit training and transport of fighters throughout Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. Allowing any terrorist organization to maintain their stronghold would pose significant threats to neighboring countries, Europe, and the Middle East.

While the death of Chouchane may serve as a major morale boost for Libya and foreign governments fighting IS, it is unlikely to have any major impact on IS operations.