Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 27, 2014, 11:52:38 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83454 Posts in 2260 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Islam in America
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 16 Print
Author Topic: Islam in America  (Read 149139 times)
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #500 on: July 27, 2012, 01:24:55 PM »

Objectionist1; I have a suggestion.  This is the Islam in America Thread; not the Pam Geller lunatic rag.  Surely to make your point you can quote another source, someone with intelligence and reasonableness?  Or is she the best you can do?   evil

I think nearly all, except perhaps you, agree with Charles Johnson, who runs the blog Little Green Footballs:

"That would be Ms. Geller. She has a very long record of absolute lunacy, mixed with bigotry and racism and I am far from the only person to point this out."

The fact that even various Jewish Organizations also think she is a wacko says something too.
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 601


« Reply #501 on: July 30, 2012, 10:42:26 PM »

Anderson Cooper Crosses the Line

Center for Security Policy | Jul 30, 2012
By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

         Anderson Cooper closed one of five segments of his weeknightly CNN show that he recently devoted to attacking principally Rep. Michele Bachmann with a genuflection towards an iconic newsman, Edward R. Murrow.  He deployed against her the gauntlet Murrow threw down to Sen. Joseph McCarthy in March 1954: “The line between investigating and persecuting is a [very] fine one.”  If anyone has stepped over that line, however, it is Cooper himself, rather than the Minnesota congresswoman.

            Night after night during the week of July 16th, the host of “Anderson Cooper 360” failed to meet even the most basic standards of investigative journalism.  The irony is that, in his ill-concealed persecution of Mrs. Bachmann, Cooper has serially engaged in precisely the practices he pillories her and others for allegedly using, by his account, to destroy the reputation of the Deputy Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a Muslim-American woman named Huma Abedin.  Let us count the ways:

Anderson Cooper insists that Michele Bachmann (who he singles out for most of his criticism, despite the fact that she was but one of five Members of Congress to raise concerns not only about Ms. Abedin’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, but those of a number of others the Obama administration has enlisted as officials, advisors and/or liaisons to “the Muslim community”) failed to do her homework. Yet, Cooper repeatedly showed his ignorance of the extensive evidence cited by the legislators, even as he mentioned the website where some of it resides: the Center for Security Policy’s online video course at www.MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com.

As he accused Rep. Bachmann of playing fast and loose with the facts, Cooper repeatedly mischaracterized the nature of the legislators’ request for five federal inspectors general to conduct investigations.  He or his echo-chamber of exclusively like-minded guests complained that Ms. Abedin is accused of being a “spy” and engaging in “treason” and that she has been subjected to a groundless, bigoted and McCarthyite witch-hunt. Several of the reporters and interested parties who added color commentary (sometimes repeatedly) further demeaned Congresswoman Bachmann by asserting that she is simply engaging in partisan politics and fund-raising for her reelection campaign.

As with the Congresswoman and to a lesser extent her colleagues, Cooper also made a point of going after this columnist.  If anyone is guilty of “McCarthyism,” though, it is the journalistic poseur who specializes in shooting the messenger and buying into and tendentiously proclaiming that there are “no facts” supporting the unwanted message – rather than rigorously examining and accurately reporting on the vast amount of evidence that inconveniently does exist.

While portraying Huma Abedin as an innocent victim of smears, Cooper engaged in his own smearing – occasionally through his rants on the subject, often by citing others who have indulged in ad hominem attacks against the congresswoman and her team.  He repeatedly showcased such attacks by individuals in her own party, even though they were clearly were unfamiliar with the actual nature of the legislators’ concerns and the abundant grounds for raising them.

One of the prominent figures in this televised persecution of Michele Bachmann was the man who kicked it off:  Her colleague, Rep. Keith Ellison, Democrat of Minnesota and the first Muslim Member of Congress.  As it happens, according to the public record (recently brilliantly distilled by counter-terrorism expert Patrick Poole at PJ Media http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/07/21/rep-keith-ellison-rewrites-history-on-his-muslim-brotherhood-cair-ties/), Mr. Ellison has himself been closely associated with the Muslim Brotherhood – a natty problem Rep. Bachmann has noted, to Cooper’s horror.

So, the “360” host had Keith Ellison on to help deflect that charge.  When the congressman blithely denied that he was a Muslim Brother or, for that matter, that he even knew very much about the Brotherhood, well, that was good enough for crack investigative journalist Anderson Cooper.  Back to the persecution of Michele Bachmann, with Cooper egging on Minnesota’s Muslim congressman.

Anderson Cooper further discredited his claim to be an independent, let alone exacting, journalist by taking at face value the FBI’s assurances that it had not dealt with Muslim Brothers or other “extremists” in the recent purge of its training materials and files.  The evidence of that falsehood is readily available.  Yet, the FBI statement was taken – and presented – as though gospel by a credulous host whose only skepticism was reserved for why Michele Bachmann had been charged by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers with investigating the extent of the Brotherhood’s influence operations inside the Bureau.]

Perhaps most distressing was the service Anderson Cooper has provided to the Islamists by promoting the meme that inquiries about specific Muslims with demonstrable ties to the Muslim Brotherhood amount to attacks on all Muslims.  This plays into the victimhood mantra Islamists use to justify their jihadism undertaken ostensibly for the purpose of defending beleaguered co-religionists.

Applying Cooper’s logic, every Muslim – even those whose associations (personal, familial, professional or other) with an organization like the Brotherhood that is sworn to our destruction clearly violate the government’s own guidelines for security clearances, to say nothing of the oath of office to support the Constitution and defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic – are to be given an automatic pass.  That may also be the view of the Obama administration, but it is a formula for disaster for the country.

There is a particular irony to Anderson Cooper’s, well, jihad against those who oppose the Muslim Brotherhood.  For an avowedly gay man, Anderson Cooper is rooting for the wrong team.  If the Islamists have their way here, he will not simply be on the wrong side of the line.  He’ll be toast.
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6098


« Reply #502 on: July 31, 2012, 10:36:06 AM »

Frank Gaffney has some credibility with me.  The line at the end looks a bit like a cheap shot, an avowedly gay man rooting for the wrong team, but it is quite odd and dangerous as he points out that gay activism is politically aligned in this country with Islamic extremism.  No, we aren't going to pass an Islamic law tomorrow to stone all gays to death, but that is only because we do not accept the basic tenets of Islamic law in civilized society.

Interesting that Muslim congressman Keith Ellison supports gay marriage.  That plays well in Minneapolis, but I did not hear him say that on his trip to Mecca.

You don't see that many Catholic pro-abortion activists.  Maybe Islam is more tolerant.
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 601


« Reply #503 on: July 31, 2012, 11:27:43 AM »

Frank Gaffney has TREMENDOUS credibility with me - I've met and spoken with him on several occasions, and his work is exemplary in this area.  He has done yeoman's work in exposing and trying to publicize Grover Norquist's Islamist ties and assistance in getting stealth jihadists into government positions of influence.  As for the comment about Anderson Cooper being a "cheap shot," I disagree completely.  It's a very valid point, and one that is played out within most of the gay community, where like within much of the black community, "groupthink" is encouraged and conservatives are considered traitors.  Unfortunately, like Jews in 1930's Germany who failed to see the serious nature of Hitler's threats, many gays in this country mindlessly defend Islam, completely ignorant of the fact that Islamic law explicitly condemns homosexuals to death.  These executions are routinely carried out in Iran and other Islamic countries.  It's even more obscene in my opinion with regard to gay support of Islam, because Islamic clerics make no secret of their belief that gays ought to be executed.  At least Hitler kept his "final solution" secret as long as he was able.

As for Keith Ellison "supporting" gay marriage - Islam is MOST DEFINITELY NOT more tolerant on this issue than any other religion - it is more OPPRESSIVE.  There is a doctrine in Islam known as taqiyya, which is exactly what Ellison is now practicing.  It states that it is not only permissible, but a DUTY of Muslims to lie to and deceive non-believers for the purpose of gaining power and influence over their institutions to destroy them from within.  Ellison's ties to the Muslim Brotherhood are very well-documented and beyond argument.  He is a bald-faced liar.
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 601


« Reply #504 on: August 01, 2012, 10:56:51 AM »

This was posted today by Chris Logan at his excellent blog - www.loganswarning.com:

“Conservative” Bloggers and Political Commentators Surrendering Their Free Speech to Islam

July 31, 2012
By Chris Logan

The other day I was alerted to an article that my anti-Sharia sister Pamela Geller, had written which mentioned Logan’s Warning. Basically the article was on the issue of some big name bloggers and political commentators who have already surrendered their freedom of speech to Islam. Some of what Pamela stated was a bit surprising. I was not aware how some of the most popular bloggers had run away from her and Robert Spencer. (Please click HERE to see the article on Atlas Shrugs.) Apparently the heat is either too much for them, or the money they bring in by toeing the politically correct line is more important than saving their future generations from Islamic rule. I would just like to add a few things to Pamela’s article. In regards to Weasel Zippers: They used to be on my email list, and approximately a year and a half ago I received an email from them asking me to remove them from my list. I asked why, and was never sent a response. Is it just for money? Is it because of my friendship with Pamela? Or maybe they just run from people who are not afraid to speak about the actual tough answers that are needed to win this war? Either way, this goes for everyone mentioned in her article who has abandoned them. Pamela and Mr. Spencer have had some major victories recently, can you say the same?


This is a war, and in order to win it we are going to have to take some heat. That means we should be supporting Pamela and Mr. Spencer. Not running to make some extra money, or running because of some verbal attacks on you. Big deal, toughen up! This is a war!

Coming up next: I will name some more “conservatives” who have run from this issue.
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 601


« Reply #505 on: August 01, 2012, 11:05:57 AM »

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/07/why-the-right-wing-blogosphere-doesnt-cover-islam.html
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31697


« Reply #506 on: August 01, 2012, 03:05:36 PM »

ICNA Embraces America's Favorite Salafi Preacher
IPT News
August 1, 2012
http://www.investigativeproject.org/3692/icna-embraces-america-favorite-salafi-preacher
 
 
Yasir Qadhi, billed by the New York Times as "one of the most influential conservative clerics in American Islam," recently told one of the nation's largest Islamic conferences that the Quran "destroys" American capitalism.
"Who amongst us would have predicted five years ago that this nation would despise and hate the very [economic] system that they used to claim was the reason for their success?" he asked hundreds at a session of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA)'s national conference in late May. "Now the system has been destroyed and demolished. Now 99 percent of America is saying Occupy Wall Street."
"This is a Pharonic society that we enjoy the pyramids, but you cannot enjoy pyramids without millions of slaves. And this is what this society has become," Qadhi said, repeating a classic Muslim metaphor for a society filled with corruption. Although his speech was intended to introduce a Somali charity worker, Qadhi used his time to call for converting America and radically altering its culture.
Qadhi's invitation to speak at the ICNA conference is puzzling, given the group's campaign to cast itself as a moderate religious group whose values are fully compatible with life in America, and given Qadhi's record of espousing a diametrically opposed viewpoint. The convention's theme, "Defending Religious Freedom, Understanding Shariah," mirrors a national public relations campaign ICNA is waging.
Qadhi didn't limit his comments to attacking America's economic system. He argued that had the Muslims engaged OWS protesters, they might have taken control of the movement and made huge gains in converts.
"Brothers and sisters, where were we at the height of the Occupy Wall Street movement to simply tell them, 'Oh fellow Americans, our lord has told us in the Quran that this system is not a good system, that this system will collapse?" he said. "This Ayah [Quranic verse] is the strongest Ayah criticizing the capitalist system as it exists in America. In five words, Allah demolishes this version of capitalism." His calls were greeted with shouts of "Allahu Akbar" and excitement by the crowd.
As the dean of academic affairs for the United States' largest Muslim academic institution, Houston-based AlMaghrib Institute, Qadhi's words reach more impressionable minds than most other American clerics. AlMaghrib partners with mosques, student organizations, and larger organizations nationwide to provide a conservative education for young Muslims. With this powerful influence, the preacher sets the standard for America's young Muslims, particularly on controversial issues like gender roles and Muslim/non-Muslim relations.
While the Times described Qadhi as "uniquely deft at balancing the edicts of orthodox Islam with the mores of contemporary America" and as someone who only used to "spout a harder line," several of his recent statements show that the charismatic preacher hasn't changed from his hardline Salafi roots.
In a video posted to YouTube last November, Qadhi advocated Saudi Arabian-style restrictions on Muslim women in the United States to protect them from Western "wolves and predators."
"Well the question arises, would I recommend a job for any [Muslim] sister and the answer is in general, in general no," Qadhi said.
"No one has liberated you from the wolves that are men more than Allah and the Sharia [law] of Allah. So if you stick to the Sharia, you will keep your honor and dignity and liberty," he said. "And if you go beyond the Sharia this is where the wolves and the predators will come and try to get you."
The average Muslim woman doesn't need to leave the home, Qadhi said. That kind of theology resembles Saudi Arabia, where women cannot drive and require a male guardian's approval to engage in many day-to-day activities. Qadhi received his undergraduate education from the nation's conservative Islamic University of Medinah.
To Qadhi, working women destroy families. The rise of "women's liberation" in the 1920s started the undermining of traditional values, which had been strong "even in kaffir [disbeliever] societies," he said. The problem arises when, "women are trying to encroach on men's roles and vice versa. If each one did their job properly then there is no point of competition."
His only exceptions to this rule are those jobs that deal with other females, like teachers at girls' schools and gynecologists. These positions are permissible because they stop men and women from interacting.
However, even those jobs are permitted only "if her husband allows her; or if she is not married and her father wishes her to, allows her to work; she may work as long the environment is permissible; and she is doing something which she needs to do; and she's not interacting with men."
"Allah has told you that this is your best role [as mothers and wives], that this is what you are most capable of doing. He has protected you from the wolves of society, stay at your house, your food and drink will come to you," he said in the YouTube video. "What more do you want?"
Professional fields are out of the question. "I don't see the need for women in many other fields," Qadhi said. "There are only a few fields, like for example in engineering, as I said, I don't see the need. We have men, they're doing the job. We don't need women in this field where they're going to interact with men. What's the point?"
God's Law Trumps Man's Law
Qadhi claims that he isn't promoting chauvinism; we're just predisposed to think of such sentiments that way because of the influence of Western culture. It's the weakness and dastardliness of men that is the danger, he says, so women shouldn't feel negative about staying at home and taking subservient roles.
Qadhi has also called for Islamic theocracy to replace democracy, and expressed blind hatred against non-Muslims.
"Here in these verses [of the Quran], Surat Maida, verses 49-50, Allah categorizes all types of laws into two categories, the law of Allah and the laws from others. And he calls the laws of Allah a fair and just law, and he calls all others Jahiliya, ignorant laws," he said in another speech. "It is not my right to legislate or your right to legislate. No supreme court, no system of government, no democracy where they vote. Can you believe it, a group of people coming together and voting, and the majority vote will then be the law of the land. What gives you the right to prohibit something or allow something?"
"To believe that it is permissible to follow a way of life, to follow a system of laws other than the Sharia, negates one's testimony of Islam," he said in another speech.
"This type of thinking is clear kufr, clear disbelief, to believe that you know better, or any system of government knows better, any democracy, or any … whether it be communism or socialism, any type of philosophy is better than Islam, or it is allowed legitimately, it is allowed to follow this system, this is a profession of the fact that you believe that Allah is not All-Knowledgeable," he said.
These quotes, part of the series "Fundamentals of Faith," were broadcast on the popular British Muslim TV 'Islam Channel' and other English-language Islamic channels.
In other speeches, he described an eternal conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims. "And this is the Sunnah [Practice] of Allah that the Kafir [disbeliever] will always hate the Muslim - the Jews and the Christians and the Hindus and every single non-Muslim," he said in an undated sermon. "He might allow every other religious minority or any other religion inside of his society and culture, but when it comes to Islam, because it is the religion of truth, he will find it inside of him to hate it. You cannot just be neutral when it comes to Islam; you are either a Muslim or you are a Kaffir that hates Islam."
We've written at length about ICNA's extreme theology, as evidenced by the curriculum it requires its members to follow. In 2009, the group assured Americans that "[e]xtremism has no place in Islam, and ICNA works tirelessly to oppose extremist and violent ideology."
Officials forgot about that statement when they invited Qadhi to speak about the demise of capitalism.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31697


« Reply #507 on: August 02, 2012, 04:20:41 PM »


http://www.radicalislam.org/analysis/huma-abedin-associate-editor-islamist-journal
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 601


« Reply #508 on: August 02, 2012, 04:40:58 PM »

Glad to see this posted, Crafty.  I also am acquainted with the author of this article - Ryan Mauro - and know him to be a very credible and thorough source.  You beat me to the punch by posting his article. My own Congressman, who is supposedly a conservative Republican, dismissed Bachmann's and her co-signers' letter along with Boehner and John McCain.  They all took the knee-jerk, ignorant position of assuming this is some sort of religious bigotry.  These folks need to be voted out of their jobs sooner rather than later.  Unfortunately Rob Woodall - my Congressman - survived his primary challenge on Tuesday, but the good news is that about 30% of the votes went to his challenger - who was expected to garner less than 5%.  The rumors of the death of the Tea Party have been greatly exaggerated, I assure you.
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #509 on: August 02, 2012, 04:41:27 PM »


I guess the question is did Ms. Huma Abedein, Deputy Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Clinton ever hide her family or affiliation?
No doubt she was vetted.

Has she done anything secretive or wrong?

And so far the answer is a resounding "NO".  

It's a witch hunt.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31697


« Reply #510 on: August 02, 2012, 04:48:55 PM »

Yeah, I bet Maj. Hussan in Texas was vetted too , , ,
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6098


« Reply #511 on: August 03, 2012, 05:31:26 PM »

"Has she done anything secretive or wrong?"...
"And so far the answer is a resounding "NO".  

   - Uh, we don't know that.  The question that was raised is how well was she vetted.  I assume Sec State Clinton has extremely high security clearance.  Huma I assume is in the room when the most secret of secrets is being revealed and discussed.  She very innocently could be talking with these relatives in question about bithdays and graduations in the family from her cell phone in a car immediately after a high clearance meeting.  She may very well be doing nothing wrong.  But SOMEONE IS LEAKING.  The point of the Bachmann et al letter is to pose the question, not the answer, about how well she was vetted and where is the firewall between her exposure to national secrets and her exposure one or two steps removed to national enemies.  That is a rational and appropriate national security question.

Some of those who find this line of inquiry out of bounds publicly and repeatedly accused the Vice President of the United States Dick Cheney of having more loyalty to his former employer Haliburton than to his country that he was sworn to serve.

The question of how well she was vetted was asked in private.  It was the opponents of the inquiry who made it public, as I understand it.  Get back behind closed doors with congressional oversight and find out how well she was vetted.  Go after the sources of the other leaks and stop the illegal and deceitful blockage of information to congressional oversight on other issues and maybe the clouds of suspicion would not be so thick.
------------
"Yeah, I bet Maj. Hussan in Texas was vetted too , , ,"

Yes.  We are making mistakes in security and intelligence all the time, long before Obama.  We should be re-visiting and re-checking these kinds of decisions all the time.

Who knew that a military base was a gun free zone.  Everyone, especially Wikileaks and the NY Times, knows the State Dept. leaks like a sieve.  Check it and check it again.

My guess (already posted) is that it is extreme liberalism, not ties to Islamic radicalism, that has caused us to side with our enemies instead of our allies on major foreign policy decisions of the last 3 1/2 years.  We can only fix that at the ballot box.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2012, 05:38:28 PM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31697


« Reply #512 on: August 03, 2012, 07:33:02 PM »

I'm thinking:  extreme liberalism, extremely reckless leaking, AND extremely damaging intel getting passed.

All in all, extremely bad , , , and extremely frustrating that someone trying to say "We need to look at this more closely" gets leaked and lambasted.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31697


« Reply #513 on: August 03, 2012, 08:04:59 PM »



http://pjmedia.com/blog/my-neighbor-the-hamas-leader/?singlepage=true

August 3, 2012 - 12:00 am     Back in March, my friend and colleague Erick Stakelbeck of CBN News emailed me a link to an article in Tablet Magazine and asked: “Hey — isn’t that your neighbor with the head of Hamas?” Sure enough, it was. My former neighbor Salah Sultan was standing right beside Ismail Haniyeh — the Hamas “prime minister” of Gaza — as Haniyeh left a meeting with Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Cairo (purple shirt):



Stakelbeck knew about my neighbor Sultan because Erick and I had worked together on a video segment highlighting Sultan’s activity and residence in my hometown of Hilliard, Ohio, back in 2007. That was more than a year after I had first written about returning home to Ohio to discover that I had an internationally known Hamas cleric living about a mile from my own house. Not only that, but Sultan was the religious director at the local Islamic school, Sunrise Academy, which had taken over the former public library building in town. Sultan was also the resident scholar of the newly built Noor Islamic Cultural Center in Hilliard.

AdvertisementAs I later recounted, the Columbus Dispatch attacked me as a racist and a bigot, characterizing me as a Christianist Neo-Nazi. This after I had identified Sultan’s rabidly anti-Jewish remarks, his calls for violent jihad, his open support for Hamas, his ties to Muslim Brotherhood front organizations, and his association with international Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

The Dispatch article encouraged readers to attend an open house set up in response to my article at the local Islamic school. The relevant section of the Dispatch article responding to my claims was titled “Hostile Assertions”:


The condemnations not only came from my local paper, but also from the “interfaith leaders” in town — namely the Interfaith Association of Central Ohio – who had arranged the Dispatch hit piece. They also came from local residents, who felt free to vent their fury in phone calls made to my family members. One local columnist wrote an article titled “Muslim Basher, Patrick Poole, Preys on People’s Fears.”

Two weeks after the Dispatch article appeared defending Salah Sultan as a well-respected Islamic scholar and local interfaith leader (curiously, the Dispatch article can no longer be found on their website), he appeared on Al-Risala TV where he claimed that the 9/11 attacks were a U.S. government plot to victimize Muslims. He also defended designated terrorist and al-Qaeda cleric Abdul Majid al-Zindani:

 
Needless to say, the Dispatch never followed up, even after I sent the reporter and editors a copy of Sultan’s video translated by MEMRI.

Last year at PJ Media, I revisited some of Salah Sultan’s activities since that time. I was driven to do so after he appeared last August on Al-Jazeera issuing a fatwa authorizing the assassination of any Israeli in Egypt. I titled that review “Yes, my neighbor really was a racist, terror-supporting Muslim Brotherhood cleric.”

As a demonstration of how correct I was, take note of the picture below of Sultan being chummy with Khaled Meshaal –the head of Hamas and a specially designated global terrorist according to the U.S. government — that was posted on Sultan’s Facebook page on May 6 this year:



In law enforcement circles, this is what is known as an “investigative clue.”

In case the folks at the Columbus Dispatch still have any doubts about his Hamas connections, here Sultan is again with Ismail Haniyeh in March, just days after the International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS) — where Sultan sits on the board – greeted Haniyeh as a member:



But what about my prior claims about Sultan’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood? Well — Sultan was actively involved in the Egyptian elections, appearing regularly with the Muslim Brotherhood’s presidential candidate Mohammed Morsi (who, I noted here, first became a Muslim Brotherhood member while in the United States studying at the University of Southern California).

Here’s a picture of Sultan and Morsi at a campaign event dated May 13:



Here is one of Morsi’s campaign flyers noting Sultan’s support (top row, second from the left):



In case there was any remaining uncertainty about Sultan’s ties to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, Sultan led a Muslim Brotherhood rally and gave a fiery speech in Tahrir Square on a live June 21 broadcast on Al-Jazeera:

 
No doubt officials at the Columbus Dispatch will say I’m an Islamophobe for mentioning Sultan’s exercise of democracy on behalf of his preferred political party in his native homeland of Egypt.

What about my previous claims of his anti-Semitic racism? Funny you should ask. Again, I would note his aforementioned fatwa broadcast on Al-Jazeera, where he authorized the killing of any “Zionist” in Egypt.

Also, in November Sultan was the organizer of a “March Against the Judaization of Jerusalem” (here is an English-language report noting his leadership in the event), which is rather remarkable, as the Jews have been living in Jerusalem for more than 3,000 years. During events related to the march, reports indicate that speakers railed against “those treacherous Jews.”

At a November 25 rally at the Al-Azhar Mosque in Cairo, Sultan can be seen marshaling religious leaders invoking the notorious Islamic hadith about the end times, when the stones and trees will say “O Muslim, there is a Jew behind me. Come kill him.”

As noted by an Anti-Defamation League (ADL) report, in February Sultan gave a speech at an IUMS meeting in Cairo where he blamed violence against Egyptian Christians on “acts of Jews.” At the event, the crowd was led in a chant: “To Jerusalem we are going as martyrs in millions.”

In May, the ADL reported that Sultan was the host of a new live television program on the Al-Risala network:

The program also featured live call-ins from viewers, including several who used the platform to make anti-Semitic remarks. One caller from Egypt said:

“It will be impossible for the Jews, those sons of apes and pigs, no way … no way … that they can achieve their goal in building their alleged temple. Inshallah and God’s willing this will never happen. We will raise our young children, the seven-year-old ones, the five-year-old ones, and the four-years-old to fight the Jews and have war with the Jews.”

Sultan responded, “God willing.”

A report last month by MEMRI stated that one of Sultan’s friends is the director of Al-Risala, Kuwaiti Muslim Brotherhood leader Tareq al-Suwaidan. They published pictures of the pair and noted Suwaidan’s anti-Jewish rhetoric, endorsement for the reestablishment of the global Islamic caliphate, and calls for violent jihad.



The MEMRI report also indicates that Suwaidan is a graduate of both the University of Oklahoma and Penn State.

One of the other issues that the Columbus Dispatch took me to task for was my connecting Sultan to international Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, whom the ADL describes at the “Theologian of Terror” for — among other things — his religious endorsement of suicide bombings by Hamas as “martyrdom” (he was the first major Sunni cleric to do so), and by Iraqi insurgents targeting American soldiers and contractors.

As far back as 2008 I noted the close relationship between Qaradawi and Sultan, including the appearance of Sultan at a July 2007 conference in Doha, Qatar (Qaradawi’s base), where Sultan praised Qaradawi as his teacher and mentor. Sultan later appeared on the main speakers’ dais with Qaradawi and Khaled Meshaal.

As Qaradawi reaches his late 80s, Sultan appears to be assuming his mentor’s mantle. Here is one recent picture of the pair:

And another:



Sultan’s increasing role in Qaradawi’s orbit is attested to in a February 10 article in the Khaleej Times reporting on a visit by leaders of the Syrian National Council — dominated and controlled by the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood — with Qaradawi. During the meeting, Sultan (identified in the article as part of Qaradawi’s group) called for armed jihad against the Assad regime:

Another leading member of Qaradawi’s grouping, Salahudin Sultan, appealed to Gulf leaders to arm rebel fighters in Syria and send troops to back them.

“King of Saudi Arabia, emir of Qatar, take out the weapons and hand them over to those free people,” Sultan said.

“As you sent your Peninsula Shield Force into Bahrain, move them towards Syria,” he added, referring to the Gulf military force deployed to member state Bahrain last March to help the kingdom’s Sunni rulers put down Shiite-led pro-democracy protests.

It’s not just the Assad regime or the “Zionists” that are the targets of Sultan’s calls for violent jihad. In December 2008 I reported at PJ Media about one of Sultan’s appearances on Al-Nas TV, where he warned of the immediate destruction of America and invoked the notorious anti-Semitic forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

This is a theme he returned to recently on Sada al-Balad TV back in February (translated by MEMRI), where he responded to a question about whether war with Israel would lead to war with the U.S. He responded: “Why not?”, approvingly cited The Protocols once again, and recalled a sermon he had previously given in Dallas where he likened the days of destruction with Noah and the looming wrath for the U.S.:

 
MEMRI also translated a January 17 interview with Sultan in which he encouraged Muslim youth to take up sports such as karate in preparation to fight for the liberation of Palestine:

I call upon young people to practice sports, and to strengthen their bodies in preparation for jihad. Practice Karate, practice Taekwondo, practice all the sports that make your body extremely strong. Lift weights, and then dream, day and night. Turn your faces towards the heavens. If the young turn their faces to the heavens in a desire to liberate the Al-Aqsa Mosque, it will be liberated soon, Allah willing.

Whatever happened to the respected Islamic scholar and interfaith moderate Salah Sultan, for whom the Columbus Dispatch was driven to publicly castigate me for daring to call him a terror-loving, terrorist-associating, racist Muslim Brotherhood leader?

He was a figment of the newspaper’s imagination, fed to them by their friends in the local Islamic community and by Sultan himself, and aided in no small measure by soothing narratives of interfaith peace and harmony many hold to despite all the conflicting evidence.

All along, he really was who I said he was. But it’s doubtful that the local media will correct the record.

But why does the record need to be corrected? Since his activity is entirely outside the U.S. now (he’s been banned from reentering the country), surely there’s really no relation between what happens over there and our communities here? Even though everything I said about Salah Sultan going back to April 2006 has been verified, my stated fears of a “hometown jihad” are nothing more than the paranoid fantasies of a raging, racist Islamophobe, right?

I’ll answer that question here at PJ Media shortly.

Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 601


« Reply #514 on: August 06, 2012, 06:21:27 PM »

Lest there be any doubt about the legitimacy of the concerns expressed regarding Hillary Clinton's advisor Huma Abedin:

Huma Abedin’s Brotherhood Ties Are Not Just a Family Affair

Posted By Andrew C. McCarthy On July 27, 2012

Senator John McCain’s claim that concerns about Huma Abedin are a smear based on “a few unspecified and unsubstantiated associations” proves more embarrassing by the day. In fact, to the extent it addressed Ms. Abedin, the letter sent to the State Department’s inspector general by five House conservatives actually understated the case.

The letter averred that Abedin “has three family members — her late father, her mother and her brother — connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations.” It turns out, however, that Abedin herself is directly connected to Abdullah Omar Naseef, a major Muslim Brotherhood figure involved in the financing of al-Qaeda. Abedin worked for a number of years at the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs as assistant editor of its journal. The IMMA was founded by Naseef, who remained active in it for decades, overlapping for several years with Abedin. Naseef was also secretary general of the Muslim World League in Saudi Arabia, perhaps the most significant Muslim Brotherhood organization in the world. In that connection, he founded the Rabita Trust, which is formally designated as a foreign terrorist organization under American law due to its support of al-Qaeda.

You ought to be able to stop right there.

A person is not required to have done anything wrong to be denied a high-ranking government position, or more immediately, the security clearance allowing access to classified information that is necessary to function in such a job. There simply need be associations, allegiances, or interests that establish a potential conflict of interest.

Government jobs and access to the nation’s secrets are privileges, not rights. That is why the potential conflict needn’t stem from one’s own associations with hostile foreign countries, organizations, or persons. Vicarious associations, such as one’s parents’ connections to troublesome persons and organizations, are sufficient to create a potential conflict.

In this instance, however, before you even start probing the extensive, disturbing Brotherhood ties of her family members, Huma Abedin should have been ineligible for any significant government position based on her own personal and longstanding connection to Naseef’s organization.

Specifically, Ms. Abedeen was affiliated with the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, where she was assistant editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. The journal was the IMMA’s raison d’etre. Abedin held the position of assistant editor from 1996 through 2008 — from when she began working as an intern in the Clinton White House until shortly before she took her current position as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff.

The IMMA was founded in the late 1970s by Abdullah Omar Naseef, who was then the vice president of the prestigious King Abdulaziz University in Saudi Arabia. The IMMA’s chief product was to be its journal. For the important position of managing editor, Naseef recruited his fellow academic Zyed Abedin, who had been a visiting professor at the university in the early 1970s.

To join the IMMA, Dr. Abedin moved his family, including infant daughter Huma (born in 1976), to Saudi Arabia from Kalamazoo, Michigan. Zyed’s wife, Saleha Mahmood Abedin (Huma’s mother), is also an academic and worked for the journal from its inception. She would eventually take it over after her husband died in 1993, and she remains its editor to this day. Huma Abedin’s brother Hassan, another academic, is an associate editor at the journal.

The journal began publishing in 1979. For its initial edition, Abdullah Omar Naseef — identified in the masthead as “Chairman, Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs” — penned a brief introduction relating the IMMA’s vision for the journal. Zyed Abedin appeared as managing editor in the journal’s second edition in 1979, proclaiming in a short introduction his “deep appreciation to H.E. Dr. Abdullah O. Naseef, President, King Abdulaziz University, for his continued guidance, support, and encouragement.” (I am indebted to the Center for Security Policy, which obtained some copies of the journal, going back many years.)

Not long after the journal started, Naseef became the secretary general of the Muslim World League, the Saudi-financed global propagation enterprise by which the Muslim Brotherhood’s virulently anti-Western brand of Islamist ideology is seeded throughout the world, very much including in the United States.

We are not talking here about some random imam in the dizzying alphabet soup of Islamist entities. In the pantheon of Islamic supremacism, there are few positions more critical than secretary general of the Muslim World League. In fact, one of the MWL’s founders was Sa’id Ramadan, the right-hand and son-in-law of Hassan al-Banna, the Brotherhood’s legendary founder.

The MWL manages the “civilization jihad” — the Brotherhood’s commitment to destroy the West from within, and to “conquer” it by sharia proselytism (or dawa), as Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, the Brotherhood’s top sharia jurist, puts it.
Nevertheless, the MWL has a long history of deep involvement in violent jihad as well.

It was under MWL auspices in 1988 that Naseef created a “charity” called the Rabita Trust. The scare-quotes around “charity” are intentional. To direct the Rabita Trust, Naseef selected Wael Hamza Jalaidan. A few years earlier, Jalaidan had joined with Osama bin Laden to form al-Qaeda.

This would surprise you only if you waste your time listening to John McCain, Version 2012 — as opposed to John McCain, Version 2011, who professed himself “unalterably opposed” to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Under the Brotherhood’s interpretation of sharia, which is explained in such works as Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, all Muslims are supposed to donate a portion of their income. This obligation, known as zakat, is usually referred to as “charity” by Islamists and their Western pom-pom waivers. But it is not charity; it is fortification of the ummah – the notional global community of Muslims.

As Reliance instructs, zakat can only be given to Muslims, and one-eighth of it is supposed to be donated to “those fighting for Allah, meaning people engaged in Islamic military operations for whom no salary has been allotted in the army roster.” Remember that the next time you hear the ubiquitous claim that Muslim charities are being misused as “fronts” for terrorism. This is not a “misuse” and they are not “fronts.” Under sharia, the streaming of donations to violent jihadists is quite intentional.

A month after the 9/11 attacks, Naseef’s Rabitah Trust was formally designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the United States government. Ultimately, branches of the al-Haramain Islamic Foundation and the International Islamic Relief Organization – other “charities” with roots in the MWL — were also designated as foreign terrorist organizations under federal law. This, too, should have not been a surprise. In 2003, in connection with a terrorism prosecution in Chicago, the Justice Department proffered that Osama bin Laden had told his aide Jamal al-Fadl that the Muslim World League was one of al-Qaeda’s three top funding sources. (Fadl later renounced al-Qaeda and cooperated with federal prosecutors.)

Throughout the time that he ran the MWL and the Rabita Trust, Naseef kept his hand in at the IMMA. In fact, he continued to be listed on the masthead as a member of the “advisory editorial board” at the IMMA’s journal until 2003. We might hazard a guess why his name disappeared after that: in 2004, he was named as a defendant in the civil case brought by victims of the 9/11 atrocities. (In 2010, a federal court dropped him from the suit — not because he was found uninvolved, but because a judge reasoned the American court lacked personal jurisdiction over him.)

Huma Abedin was affiliated with the IMMA’s journal for a dozen years, from 1996 through 2008. She overlapped with its founder, Naseef, for at least seven years — it could be more, but I am assuming for argument’s sake that Naseef had no further involvement in his institute once his name was removed from the masthead.

The case against Ms. Abedin’s suitability for a high-level position with access to the nation’s secrets gets much worse if you add in her family ties.

To summarize what I’ve already outlined here at Ordered Liberty: her parents were recruited by Naseef to head up the IMMA; her mother is an active member of Muslim Brotherhood organizations — including the Muslim Sisterhood and two entities that are part of Sheikh Qaradawi’s Union of Good, another designated terrorist organization; there is persuasive evidence that her father was a member of the Brotherhood — e.g., the intimate tie to Naseef and his widow’s membership in the Muslim Sisterhood (which is substantially comprised of wives and female relatives of prominent Muslim Brothers); her mother is a tireless advocate of sharia law as preached by Qaradawi and the Brotherhood; and her brother, who is also affiliated with the IMMA’s journal, was a fellow at an Islamist institute (the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies) on whose board sat both Naseef and Qaradawi.

Nevertheless, the family ties to the Brotherhood only further elucidate what is already patent: Huma Abedin’s connection to Abdullah Omar Naseef, by itself, would have been more than enough justification to deny her a security clearance. That would have made it inconceivable that she could serve as deputy chief of staff to the secretary of state.

Ms. Abedin has very disturbing connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. Though she is not a policymaker, she is an important adviser, and during her three-year tenure, federal government policy has radically shifted in the Brotherhood’s favor, to the point that the Obama administration is not only embracing the previously shunned Brotherhood but issuing visas to members of formally designated terrorist organizations.

The question is not whether the five House conservatives were off-base in asking for an investigation into ties between administration officials and Islamist organizations. The question is why the other 430 members of the House haven’t joined them — and why John McCain, John Boehner, and other Republican establishment luminaries are championing the Muslim Brotherhood’s side of the dispute.

Article printed from Ordered Liberty: http://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 601


« Reply #515 on: August 07, 2012, 08:49:04 AM »

Former Federal Prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy Briefs on
Muslim Brotherhood Influence Operations

 
When:  11:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m., August 8, 2012
 
Where:  Edward R. Murrow Room, National Press Club
               529 14th Street Northwest, 13th Floor
               Washington, DC 20045
 
Who:  Andrew C. McCarthy: Prosecutor of the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdul Rahman
 
What: A presentation of new information concerning Muslim Brotherhood influence operations inside and aimed at the Obama administration and their impact on U.S. policy. The briefing will include additional revelations concerning Huma Abedin, Deputy Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
 
            Ever since five Members of Congress – Representatives Michele Bachmann (MN) Louie Gohmert (TX), Trent Franks (AZ), Lynn Montgomery (GA) and Tom Rooney (FL) – were attacked by their colleague, Rep. Keith Ellison (MN), for asking the Inspectors General of federal departments to investigate evidence of Muslim Brotherhood influence operations within the U.S. government, there has been much heat and relatively little light on the subject.  The group that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has dubbed “the National Security Five” has been subjected to character assassination, had its motives and integrity impugned and been ridiculed for acting irresponsibly, without any basis for its request to the IGs.  In fact, it has been the five legislators’ critics of both parties who have failed to do their homework.
 
            Fortunately one of the Nation’s most knowledgeable and respected authorities regarding the Muslim Brotherhood’s “civilization jihad” - former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew C. McCarthy - has done his due diligence. In successive articles at National Review Online and PJMedia, Mr. McCarthy has explored some of the evidence that individuals with ties to the Brotherhood are working inside or advising the Obama administration.  He shares – and, with his characteristic rigor, further validates – the concerns expressed by Mrs. Bachmann et al. that American policy may be influenced by such officials, advisors and “liaisons” to the Muslim-American community.
 
            Mr. McCarthy’s briefing will address several examples of this phenomenon, including additional information developed in recent days concerning Huma Abedin’s associations with the Muslim Brotherhood.
 
            Please RSVP to Adam Savit, savit@securefreedom.org or 202-719-2413.
 
The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public.
 
For more information visit www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org.
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 601


« Reply #516 on: August 07, 2012, 10:15:53 AM »

The Blue Belt in Olympic Judo

By Robert Spencer - 8-5-2012

Now the whole story of the Saudi girl who got Olympic rules changed so she could compete in judo wearing a hijab has finally come out. Wojdan Shaherkani, who forced a rule change in the Olympics so she could compete in judo while wearing a hijab, which previously had been banned for safety reasons, has only been practicing judo for two years, and is only a blue belt. She was only in the Olympics by special invitation.

This is like grabbing some guy from the local karate school, some guy who has been stopping in on Fridays for awhile to get back into shape, and throwing him into the Olympics. Shaherkani demonstrated this by lasting only 82 seconds in her Olympic bout. Nothing could have illustrated more vividly that the purpose of this pudgy girl’s Olympic appearance was not to bring home a medal to happy Saudi judo fans.

The purpose of Wojdan Shaherkani's Olympic appearance was twofold: to comply with International Olympic Committee (IOC) pressure for female athletes from Sharia states like Saudi Arabia, and to turn that situation into a victory by pressuring the IOC for a concession on hijabs, thereby reinforcing the principle that wherever Islamic law and Infidel laws and practices conflict, it is Infidel laws and practices that must give way. Throwing this unprepared girl into Olympic competition was a cynical ploy to show yet again that the West must submit to the demands of Muslims and of Islamic law.

It was to reinforce Islamic supremacism that the world was treated to the spectacle of an inexperienced blue belt competing in Olympic judo. This is in line with long-standing initiatives in Europe, Canada, and the United States, where groups of Muslims are increasingly demanding that local custom accommodate to them, rather than the other way around, and are doing so based on the proposition that Islamic culture is superior to Western culture, and that Western culture must ultimately give way to it.

One notorious example came last October, when the Obama Department of Justice settled a Muslim woman’s religious discrimination lawsuit against the Berkeley School District. The DoJ forced the school district to pay Safoorah Khan $75,000 for denying her nearly three weeks of vacation during the school year so that she could go on the hajj.

Safoorah Khan asked for "almost three weeks of unpaid leave" so that she could go on the hajj. She wrote that "based on her religious beliefs, she could not justify delaying performing hajj," although since a Muslim has his or her entire lifetime to perform the hajj, it's unclear what would have made it impossible for her to justify delaying doing so -- was she in imminent danger of death?

If she wasn't, there was no reason why she had to go on the hajj at that time. And since the Islamic calendar is a lunar one with a year of 355 days, the time to perform the hajj moves by ten days every year. All she had to do was wait until the time for the hajj fell during summer vacation, and then there would have been no problem.

But instead, she demanded three weeks of leave. Yet three weeks of leave, even unpaid, out of the school year is a significant chunk of time -- after all, the school year is only about nine months long. So she is essentially demanding to keep her job despite being away for nearly a tenth of the time during which the job is to be performed.

Yet Obama's Justice Department, ever accommodating to Islamic demands, is forcing the school district to make a big payout to her. And you can be sure there will be more cases like this one. Said Khan: "I’m glad that we settled and I hope this does set a precedent...I hope this helps people and their employers to accommodate Muslims and their requests."

Oh, it certainly will. For the current guardians of Western culture and civilization are all too willing to comply with these “requests,” having been convinced after years of mainstream media indoctrination that not to do so would be to would constitute an unacceptable “racism,” “bigotry,” and “Islamophobia.” They are unable or unwilling to see that the outcome of the myriad small accommodations to a supremacist and intolerant ideology will be the destruction of the very basis of their tolerance and openness. But by then it will be too late.

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book, Did Muhammad Exist?, is now available.
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 601


« Reply #517 on: August 09, 2012, 02:58:21 PM »

The Abedin Family’s Pro-Jihadist Journal

August 6th, 2012 by Andrew Bostom |


Steadily burgeoning evidence indicates that one of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s closest aides, Huma Abedin, despite Ms. Clinton’s protestation, was inadequately vetted for either family, or personal ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Diligent, open source investigation has already uncovered and documented numerous alarming connections. One can reasonably infer that a serious, formal Congressional investigation of the overall extent of Muslim Brotherhood influence operations—as requested by Representatives Bachmann, Gohmert, Franks, Westmoreland, and Rooney—might yield even more disturbing findings.

Pending these sorely needed Congressional inquiries—replete with their probing investigative tools—much can still be gleaned from the public record. For example, over the past 33 years, Huma Abedin’s family has been responsible for the editorial production of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA)’s academic journal, known as Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs. Journal, from 1979-1995, and Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs [JMMA], from 1996. till now, starting with family patriarch Syed Z. Abedin’s, and Huma’s mother, Saleha Abedin’s, founding involvement since 1979, and subsequently joined by Huma’s brother Hassan Abedin (1996 to present), Huma herself (1996 to 2008), and Huma’s sister, Heba (married name Khalid, or Khaled; 2002 to present).

Syed Abedin, in the inaugural edition of the IMMA journal, gives an effusive tribute to one of his IMMA co-founders, Dr. Abdullah Omar Nasseef, Chairman of the IMMA. During his concurrent tenure as Secretary-General of the Muslim World League—a combined Saudi Wahhabi, Muslim Brotherhood-dominated organization—in July, 1988, Naseef also created the Rabita Trust, and became its chairman. On October 12, 2001, then President George W. Bush’s Executive Order named Rabita Trust as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist Entity, and the US Treasury Department froze its assets, while Naseef was still serving as the Trust’s chairman. Nasseef remained on the IMMA journal Editorial Board through 2003, overlapping Huma Abedin’s tenure for 7-years (i.e., 1996-2003).

The current (April/May 2012) issue of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs journal (JMMA) features two essays, introduced with lavish praise by Editor Saleha Abedin, which champion, unabashedly:

The global hegemonic aspirations of major 20th century Muslim Brotherhood jihadist ideologues, such as the eminent Muslim Brotherhood theoretician, Sayyid Qutb (d. 1966), and Abul Hasan Nadwi (d. 1999)
The more expansive application of Sharia within Muslim minority communities residing in the West, with the goal of replacing these non-Muslim governing systems, as advocated by contemporary Muslim Brotherhood jihadist ideologues, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, and Taha Jabir al-Alwani
One of these JMMA essays repeats, approvingly, Qutb’s pejorative characterization of the West as a “disastrous combination of avid materialism, and egoistic individualism.” Abul Hasan Nadwi, was a founding member of the Muslim World League, a member of the Organization of Islamic Conference (now Cooperation), a member of the World Supreme Council of Mosques, and a member of the Fiqh Council of Rabita.  In a triumphal 1951 manifesto extolling Islamic supremacism, Nadwi had proclaimed  “Behold the world of man looking with rapture at the world of Islam as its savior, and behold the world of Islam fixing its gaze on the Arab world as its secular and spiritual leader. Will the world of Islam realize the hope of the world of men? And will the Arab world realize the hope of the Muslim world?” Citing Nadwi with admiration, the same JMMA article opines, “[T]he confrontation has taken the shape of an ‘Islamic project’ in the Muslim world against Western modernity…. The war that has been declared against Western modernity now seeks a new modernity…unlike Western modernity.”

Another featured essay from the current issue of the JMMA is a fitting complement to  the journal’s endorsement of the global Islamic supremacist agenda. This essay endorses the so-called “innovative” application of the  “Jurisprudence of Muslim Minorities,” living, for example, in the West, whose stated purpose is, “enforcement of shari’ah on the Muslim communities.” However, by the essay’s own expressed standard: “The theory of the Jurisprudence of Muslim Minorities is most easily clarified by shedding light on its founders.”

The two founders of this legal doctrine, as the essay  notes, are Yusuf al-Qaradawi of Qatar, and Taha Jabir al-Alwani of Virginia, USA.

Qaradawi has publicly advocated:

The re-creation of a formal transnational United Islamic State (Islamic Caliphate)
The jihad conquests of Europe, and the Americas
Universal application of the Sharia, including Islamic blasphemy law, and the hadd punishments (for example, notably, executing so-called “apostates” from Islam)
Al-Alwani, writing as president of the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), a think tank created by the Muslim Brotherhood in the early 1980s, stated, regarding a (then) new English translation of the classic Shafiite manual of Islamic jurisprudence Reliance of the Traveller,  “from a purely academic point of view, this translation is superior to anything produced by orientalists in the way of translations of major Islamic works.” Notwithstanding al-Alwani’s glowing tribute,  Reliance of the Traveller sanctions open-ended jihadism to subjugate the world to a totalitarian Islamic Caliphate; rejection of bedrock Western liberties—including freedom of conscience and speech—enforced by imprisonment, beating, or death; discriminatory relegation of non-Muslims to outcast, vulnerable pariahs, and even Muslim women to subservient chattel (who must be segregated and undergo female genital mutilation); and barbaric punishments which violate human dignity, such as amputation for theft, stoning for adultery, and lashing for alcohol consumption. Moreover,

Al-Alwani wished Islamized Spain had conquered America and spread Islam in our hemisphere, not Christianity. He stated,  “Perhaps some of them [Muslims from Spain] would have been the ones who discovered America, not someone else, and America could have possibly been today among the lands of the Muslims”
Al-Alwani was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the case against Sami Al-Arian who pled guilty to conspiracy to aid the terrorist organization, Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
al-Alwani published an essay online, discovered (and translated from Arabic to English) in July 2011, entitled “The Great Haughtiness”, which promoted conspiratorial Islamic Jew-hatred replete with Koranic references, conjoined to modern “Zionist conspiracies”
The Abedin family “academic” journal is a thinly veiled mouthpiece for the Muslim Brotherhood’s Sharia-supremacist agenda.  One can now add this conclusive, public record evidence to a host of other bona fide justifications for the Congressional inquiry demanded by Representative Bachmann, and her four intrepid colleagues.


All Articles Copyright © 2007-2012 Dr. Andrew Bostom | All Rights Reserved
Printing is allowed for personal use only | Commercial usage(For Profit) is a copyright violation and written permission must be granted first.
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #518 on: August 09, 2012, 03:31:52 PM »

It's a witch hunt going nowhere. 

"Grover Norquist, a prominent Republican strategist, who like others, has been attacked by Gaffney for alleged ties to radical Islamist groups during President George W. Bush’s administration, dismissing Gaffney as a “sick, little bigot.”"

Wow; I guess that sums it up rather well.     grin   No one seems to care except you Objectionist1.   evil

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/bachmann-affair-against-clinton-aide-huma-abedin-is-a-wake-up-call/2012/07/26/gJQAFHP4BX_blog.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31697


« Reply #519 on: August 09, 2012, 06:14:07 PM »

Worth noting is the provenance of your posted piece:

"John L. Esposito is founding director of the Prince Alwaleed Bin TalalCenter for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University."

In other words, he's on the Saudi Wahhabi payroll.  No doubt the family in question is, as he says, educated, but so too is Morsi of Egypt and lots of other MB people.  It still doesn't change what they are about.

Worth remembering is the extreme sensitivity of the access to secrets that this position entails and the attendant standards that need to be applied.   I'll readily agree that MB sometimes is casual in her approach to factual accuracy, but it seems to me Obj is offering substance in support of what he says whereas the Exposito piece does not address the substance and seeks merely to make his point via compurgation.


Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 601


« Reply #520 on: August 09, 2012, 06:25:03 PM »

Also worth noting is that JDN makes absolutely NO attempt to refute anything contained in the Andrew McCarthy piece I posted earlier in this thread, which effectively destroys his laughable claim that this is simply a "witch hunt."  There are plenty of FACTS in that piece.  JDN evidently isn't interested in facts - only in character assassination.
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6098


« Reply #521 on: August 09, 2012, 08:55:43 PM »

"No one seems to care except you Objectionist1"

    - This statement is categorically false.  Read the thread.


"JDN makes absolutely NO attempt to refute anything contained in the Andrew McCarthy piece I posted earlier in this thread, which effectively destroys his laughable claim that this is simply a "witch hunt."  There are plenty of FACTS in that piece.  JDN evidently isn't interested in facts - only in character assassination."

    - This statement is true.


An honest difference of opinion debated passionately would be perfect for the question at hand.  Unfortunately one side of the argument hasn't shown up yet.

Let me help frame an answer for the character assassin.  Inquiry and oversight into the question of how highest level staff with at least indirectly ties to terror organizations were vetted is not warranted because ________________________.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #522 on: August 10, 2012, 01:05:27 PM »

Actually Doug, my statement is true.

No one does seem to care, from conservatives like Rollins to McCord on the Senate Floor.  Except for wackos and right wings, no one, including respected Republicans
are criticizing Abedin; in fact, many are openly supporting her.  Objectivist1, note, these are people with character.   smiley

And I did refute the Andrew McCarthy piece; or I should say the piece I posted by the esteemed Professor from Georgetown Dr. Esposito in the Washington Post (often quoted here and primarily a right wing publication) tore McCarthy's piece to shreds.  "John Esposito is University Professor, Professor of Religion and International Affairs, and Professor of Islamic Studies. He is the Founding Director of the Center for Muslim/Christian Understanding, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University. Dr. Esposito has served as President of the Middle East Studies Association, the American Council for the Study of Islamic Societies, and Vice Chair of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy. He has also worked as a consultant to governments, multinational corporations, and the media worldwide. He is Editor-in-Chief of The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World, The Oxford History of Islam, and The Oxford Dictionary of Islam. His more than 25 books include: Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam; What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam; The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality; Islam and Politics; and Islam and Democracy. "

And Doug, she was vetted.  Vetted enough that the leading Republicans, not to mention the Democrats think she is qualified and NOT a threat.  No on of any substance is criticizing Abedin.  It's a sick, partisan witch hunt; there is no substance to any charges. Odd that Andrew McCarthy's last name is McCarthy. 

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/08/the-banality-of-american-islamophobia.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-alexander-muslim-sikh-20120810,0,6114417.story

As for character assassination, well Objectivist1 if you would post someone with character, I wouldn't have to assassinate them.   grin

Geller is a well known wacko and Grover Norquist, a prominent Republican strategist, dismissed Gaffney as a “sick, little bigot.”

Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 601


« Reply #523 on: August 10, 2012, 03:02:34 PM »

Quoting JDN:  "Geller is a well known wacko and Grover Norquist, a prominent Republican strategist, dismissed Gaffney as a “sick, little bigot.”

Calling someone names, regardless of who makes the charge - doesn't make it so.  It's also worth pointing out that I haven't seen JDN - or anyone else on this forum, refute anything that Pamela Geller has said that I have posted.  Call her a "wacko" if you like - let's see the evidence.

As for Grover Norquist calling Frank Gaffney a "sick, little bigot," the same applies.  Gaffney has attacked Norquist repeatedly over his documented Islamist connections.  It's not surprising that Norquist wouldn't be pleased with this - however - Norquist hasn't refuted ANY of the charges Gaffney has made about him.

Again - I say - let's see the evidence that either of these individuals is making false charges.  What no one ACTUALLY cares to entertain on this forum is baseless name-calling.  Kindly present your evidence and engage in an honest debate, or stop wasting others' time here.  You'll simply be ignored going forward.
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #524 on: August 10, 2012, 03:20:01 PM »

Objectivist1; it goes to credibility.

This isn't a Democrat vs. Republican issue.  Or liberal versus conservative.  I'm not biased.

When even the respected conservative blog "Little Green Footballs" calls Geller a wacko, I listen.  Not to mention prominent and RESPECTED Jewish individuals and organizations agree.

The same point applies to Abedin.  Prominent and RESPECTED conservatives support her and ridicule her critics.

You are not posting "evidence" but rather baseless rumors filled with innuendo.  It's like reading a fictional novel only you call it "truth".   huh

It's your sources Ojectivist1; they are a joke.  No one, or maybe you do  shocked believes them.  It's a non sequitur; it does not follow.
You should post in the humor thread.  Your posts are that funny.   grin

Or find some respected and credible sources.
Or can't you?   evil
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 601


« Reply #525 on: August 11, 2012, 07:59:53 AM »

AFDI/SIOA Islamorealism ads up in New York!

See here: www.jihadwatch.org/2012/08/afdisioa-islamorealism-ads-up-in-new-york.html#comments

I am very pleased to report that for once the freedom of speech and the truth have triumphed over political correctness and submission to the Islamic supremacist agenda. Our AFDI/SIOA Islamorealism ads are up in New York Metropolitan Transit Authority stations from White Plains to the Bronx. I'm particularly proud of this as "Islamorealism" is a word I coined.

All kudos go to Pamela Geller, who originated this ad and all our brilliant AFDI/SIOA Islamic supremacist awareness ads, and who keeps pushing the politically correct establishment to grant us our free speech rights.

Posted by Robert on August 10, 2012 5:17 AM
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 601


« Reply #526 on: August 13, 2012, 07:28:43 AM »

Cyrus McGoldrick of Hamas-linked CAIR calls for vandalism of AFDI pro-Israel ads

Robert Spencer - August 12, 2012

"I almost don't want to protest/vandalize them. But then again...."

Pamela Geller has the story http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/08/hamas-cair-ny-incites-fb-forums-to-vandalize-pro-israel-ads-.html

Cyrus McGoldrick is "Civil Rights Manager" of Hamas-CAIR, NY. He is urging anti-semitic violence and vandalism of our pro-Israel bus ads that just went up in California after our historic free speech win in court.
The scores of anti-Israel bus and subway campaigns that have run thoughout the United States were never met with calls for violence and destruction.

Indeed. But Hamas-linked CAIR has never shrunk from thuggish attempts to obstruct and deny the freedom of speech.  http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/07/brave-sir-ahmed-ran-away-hamas-linked-cair-op-passed-up-a-chance-to-be-on-ala-panel-and-now-crows-ab.html
« Last Edit: August 13, 2012, 07:31:14 AM by objectivist1 » Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #527 on: August 13, 2012, 02:31:36 PM »

Frankly, I bet a lot of other people are calling for vandalism too.  Calling the Palestinians "savages" doesn't seem like a positive step forward to a long term solution.  The only "savages" aka wackos might be Geller and Spencer. 

By the way, Ojectivist1, do you work for atlasshrugs2000 or jihadwatch? 

I mean it seems like it's the ONLY source you are able to reference.  Why is that?
No one else cares?   evil
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 601


« Reply #528 on: August 13, 2012, 11:37:20 PM »

Christie Hosts Hamas-linked radical Imam

Radicalislam.org - Sunday, July 29, 2012


New Jersey Governor Chris Christie hasn’t commented on the case of Imam Mohammed Qatanani since the issue started getting attention, leaving open the question of whether he still stands by the radical imam that the Department of Homeland Security wants to deport. We now know the answer. On July 24, Christie invited Qatanani to a Ramadan dinner at the Governor’s Mansion and he reaffirmed his support for the cleric, calling him a “friend.”

“In all my interactions with the imam, he has attempted to be a force for good in his community, in our state with law enforcement, with those of us who have gotten to know him for the years,” Christie said at the event in Princeton.  He continued:

“I hope that what you see is a constant strain of conduct for me. I will judge people based upon their relationships with me and the way I observe them conduct themselves, and while there may be other issues at play and I will certainly consider those if other facts come in, I will tell you the folks who are my friends will continue to be my friends as long as they continue to conduct themselves with integrity and honesty and faith in common value and the things that make our state a better place.”

This development isn’t terribly surprising, especially since RadicalIslam.org reported that when Christie’s Attorney General met with Qatanani, Mohamed el-Filali, the executive director of Qatanani’s mosque and an official from the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ N.J. chapter.

A July 29, 2008 court filing said Qatanani was guilty of “material misrepresentation,” “has engaged in terrorist activity” and “engaging in unauthorized employment…by allowing an out-of-status alien to reside with him.”

“It is certainly suspicious when a person who has been convicted of being a member of, and providing services, to Hamas, who has personal ties to a Hamas militant leader, and a Hamas fundraiser also sends undisclosed cash to the West Bank,” the document reads.

Qatanani’s next hearing is scheduled for November 26.

For more background information on Imam Qatanani and his relationship with Governor Christie, read RadicalIslam.org’s previous reports by clicking here, here and here.
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #529 on: August 14, 2012, 03:44:12 PM »

Objectivist1; kudos to you!

You not only posted a piece not from Geller/Spence, but one that criticized a Republican.
That seems rather fair; thank you.

That said, I'm not sure how serious this is; "Qatanani was guilty of “material misrepresentation,” “has engaged in terrorist activity” and “engaging in unauthorized employment…by allowing an out-of-status alien to reside with him.”

Except of course "terrorist activity".  If THAT is serious, then this is not good.  As for "material misrepresentation" well, that doesn't sound too serious, and "unauthorized employment" well, again, not too serious. 

What is "terrorist activity"?


Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 601


« Reply #530 on: August 15, 2012, 08:01:17 PM »


Well, Whaddya know? Huma Abedin was a Muslim Students Association Board Member

by Walid Shoebat - August 15, 2012 - www.shoebat.com
———————

Well, well, well… In addition to Huma Abedin returning to the United States circa 1996 and landing a job with both Hillary Clinton and the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA), she also joined the Muslim Students Association (MSA) Executive Board at George Washington University.

The following screen shot is courtesy of Wayback Machine and shows that in 1997, Huma Abedin served on the MSA Executive Board as the Head of Social Committee.

We now know that while Huma was serving on the IMMA Board with al-Qaeda financier Abdullah Omar Naseef, she was also serving on the Board of a Muslim Brotherhood front group – the MSA – as identified by the 1991 document introduced into evidence during the Holy Land Foundation trial. In 1997, that document was only six years old.

Remember, both Wolf Blitzer and Dana Milbank said that arguing Muslim Brotherhood infiltration has merit; Huma Abedin was a Board member of the MSA, a Muslim Brotherhood organization.

Wolf? Dana?
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 601


« Reply #531 on: August 16, 2012, 08:44:26 AM »

The Elephant in the Room: Is Muslim Brotherhood Paying Huma and Weiner Rent for $3.3M Apartment?

August 14, 2012

www.maggiesnotebook.com


Former Congressman Anthony Weiner and his wife Huma Abedin have moved into a $3.3 MILLION apartment in New York City. How are they paying for this tony piece of real estate when Weiner still doesn’t have a real job that anyone knows about – maybe some consulting and such, but that’s about it. Or maybe he had a re-election war chest when he resigned? His wife’s income is reportedly $155,000 annually. Let’s cut to the chase – give the elephant a glance: is the Muslim Brotherhood paying for Huma Abedin’s convenient access to Hillary Clinton’s brain, computer and power?

The residence is a 2,120-square-foot, four-bedroom, 3.5-bathroom apartment, according to the Post, and the paper notes the property curiously came off the market at the same time Weiner sold his residence last year.  Source: Breitbart

Weiner resigned his US Congressional seat for New York…in disgrace, after tweeting lewd photos of himself, while his wife was pregnant with their first child. A Clinton spokesperson told Breitbart.com that Weiner and wife are a “two-income” family, so maybe he’s tapping his 401K or Government pension, or whatever, but it sounds like he’s a stay-at-home Dad. Huma is Hillary Clinton’s close personal friend and her Deputy Chief of Staff. They met in Saudia Arabia and Abedin’s parents are well-documented Muslim Brotherhood supporters:

1. Huma Abedin’s mother, Dr. Saleha S. Mahmood Abedin (hereafter, Saleha Abedin), is an influential member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s division for women, the  Muslim Sisterhood. She is also a zealous advocate of sharia law’s oppression of women — which McCain himself condemned in a 2011 interview with Der Spiegel.

2. Not only that: Saleha Abedin is a board member of the International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief. The IICDR has been long banned in Israel for supporting Hamas. It is also part of the Union for Good, which is a formally designated international terrorist organization under federal law. The Union for Good is led by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the chief sharia jurist of the Muslim Brotherhood. He is the world’s most influential Islamic cleric, and has issued fatwas endorsing suicide bombings against Israel and terrorist attacks against American forces in Iraq.

3. Moreover, it turns out that Huma Abedin herself was, until late 2008, a member of another of her mother’s Islamist organizations, the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs. Read more at PJ Media

If that’s not enough, remember the hammer dropped on Rep. Michele Bachmann for bringing attention to Abedin’s background? Walid Shoebat is ready to tell more:

That news concerns Huma’s alleged ties to Abdullah Omar Nasseef, a “financier” of terrorism with whom Huma was associated when she was part of his organization, the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA), until taking her position with Sec. of State Clinton.

Shoebat is also prepared to show the alleged ties between the Abedin family and Yusuf Qaradawi, “the spiritual head of the Muslim Brotherhood.” Shoebat’s focus on Qaradawi is critical, because many that have dismissed Bachmann’s concerns about Huma have done so based on the fact that Huma’s husband, former Rep. Anthony Wiener, is Jewish. Source: Breitbart

The apartment, which is owned by a Clinton supporter, is judged to rent for $12,000 – $14,000 per month. If family income is only $12,916 gross monthly, the verboten question: how much is it worth to have an operative at the highest levels of the U.S. State Department? Read much more on Huma Abedin at The Camp of the Saints.

AskMarion links and has much more background and current news on Abedin, including a White House Iftar dinner and her place at the table.
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31697


« Reply #532 on: August 16, 2012, 09:42:22 AM »

In a world with the attention span of a television commercial, your sustained focus and attention to detail on this is appreciated Obj.
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 601


« Reply #533 on: August 16, 2012, 10:59:49 AM »

The Grand Deflection

Center for Security Policy | Aug 13, 2012
By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

A magician typically succeeds when the attention of the audience is diverted from his main activity onto some distraction.  President Obama has raised this sort of deflection into a political art form.

Take, for example, the matter of revelations by five Members of Congress and the Center for Security Policy that there appear to be a number individuals working for or with the Obama administration with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.   The possibility that their influence may be helping to shape U.S. policy in ways that increasingly align it with the demands, ambitions and goals of the Brotherhood and other Islamists is a national security problem of the first order.  That is especially true at a moment when Muslim Brothers are consolidating their hold on power in Egypt with the cashiering of two top generals at the hands of the Brotherhood's newly elected president, Mohamed Morsi.

Yet, Team Obama and its allies in the elite media have aggressively worked to deflect the focus away from these realities.  At first, they did so by viciously attacking Congresswoman Michele Bachmann - even though she was just one of five legislators who asked for investigations into these seeming influence operations by inspectors general of five federal agencies.

Then, they sought to portray as a victim of racism and bigotry just one of those about whom the Members of Congress raised legitimate questions: Huma Abedin, the Deputy Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.  Journalists like CNN's Anderson Cooper repeated uncritically - and unprofessionally -  assurances that there was no factual basis for linking Ms. Abedin to the Muslim Brotherhood.  Where compelled to acknowledge that members of her family do have ties to Brotherhood-connected organizations, the administration and its allies denounced such concerns as "guilt by association" and "McCarthyism."

Then, former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, former Muslim Brother Walid Shoebat and other researchers established a direct tie between Huma Abedin and a Muslim Brotherhood front, the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA).  IMMA was established essentially as an Abedin family business by Abdullah Omar Naseef, an officially designated al Qaeda financier. 

Shortly after IMMA was founded under his chairmanship, Naseef became the secretary general of the Muslim World League (MWL) which Mr. McCarthy described in an August 8th speech in Washington sponsored by the Center for Security Policy as: "the Saudi-financed global propagation enterprise by which the Muslim Brotherhood's virulently anti-Western brand of Islamist ideology is seeded throughout the world, very much including in the United States."

It happens that Huma Abedin was listed for twelve years on the masthead of the IMMA's journal as an associate editor.  For at least seven of those years, Omar Naseef was also listed as a member of the editorial advisory board.

In his remarks last week, former Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney McCarthy directly spoke to charges that Huma Abedin was being unfairly challenged by virtue of these various ties to the Muslim Brotherhood: "‘Guilt by association' has nothing to do with fitness for high public office. High public office is a privilege, not a right. Access to classified information is a privilege, not a right. You need not have done anything wrong to be deemed unfit for these privileges."

Andrew McCarthy added pointedly:  "It is not a question of your patriotism or your trustworthiness. It is about whether you would be burdened by such obvious conflicts of interest that you would be tempted to act on those interests, rather than in the best interests of the United States."

Nonetheless, two days later, the Deflector-in-Chief used the occasion of remarks at his fourth annual White House Iftar dinner - a ceremony marking the breaking of the Ramadan fast - to provide a shout-out to one of his guests, Huma Abedin.  Mr. Obama pronounced: "Huma is an American patriot, and an example of what we need in this country - more public servants with her sense of decency, her grace and her generosity of spirit. So, on behalf of all Americans, we thank you so much."  Nothing to see here folks, move along.

Not only does Ms. Abedin's relationship to the Muslim Brotherhood and involvement in policies favorable to its interests warrant close official scrutiny. There are at least six other individuals with Brotherhood ties whose involvement in Obama administration "Muslim outreach" and/or related policy-making also deserve investigation by the IGs and the Congress:

Rashad Hussain, Special Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation;
Dalia Mogahed, an advisor to President Obama;
Mohamed Elibiary, a member of Homeland Security Department's Advisory Council;
Mohamed Magid, a member of the Homeland Security Department's Countering-Violent Extremism Working Group;
Louay Safi, until recently the credentialing authority for Muslim chaplains in the U.S. military and now a leader of the Brotherhood-dominated Syrian National Council; and
Kifah Mustapha, a Hamas-fundraiser and graduate of the FBI's ‘Citizens Academy'
The American people are entitled to know who is shaping the policies that are increasingly empowering, enriching and emboldening the Muslim Brotherhood - an organization sworn to our destruction.  Under no circumstances should legitimate and well-grounded congressional requests for formal investigations be deflected, let alone suppressed.

And the results of those investigations must be available to inform the critical choice American voters have to make this November.  It just might make all the difference in the outcome - which is presumably why the grand deflection is being pursued with such determination.
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #534 on: August 16, 2012, 12:06:49 PM »

In a world with the attention span of a television commercial, your sustained focus and attention to detail on this is appreciated Obj.

I too like your new approach with references more qualified (although I disagree with them) than gelled/spencer.

I particularly liked your post about New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Imam Mohammed Qatanani.  Wow, he was arrested
for terrorism?  That's really serious.  Maybe Christie should be investigated?

As for Abedin, it's all smoke and no substance.  She was a member of the Muslim Student Association?  Wow, maybe it's because
she is Muslim?  I know a lot of Mexicans who are members of the Mexican Student Association too.  Doesn't mean they
are bad.

As for their new apartment, ALL financial dealings of Abedin are reviewed.  This one is no secret.  The apartment is owned by
Mr. Rosen, a wealthy, Jewish friend of Clinton.  It seems they are living there rent free.  Maybe her loyalty is being bought
by the Jewish lobby.  But I doubt it; I think Abedin is just a hard working, very bright, talented individual who is doing a job
and serving America.

http://nypress.com/weiner-and-wife-move-into-plush-3-3-million-pad/
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 601


« Reply #535 on: August 17, 2012, 08:38:53 AM »

Norquist Repudiates Romney-Ryan on Defense

Posted By Frank Gaffney On August 17, 2012

On Monday, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, were sharply criticized over their commitment to reverse massive budget cuts Team Obama is making at the expense of our military capabilities and national security.

What made this attack notable – and potentially very damaging to the GOP standard-bearers – is that it came, not from the Democrats, but from a prominent Republican political operative, Grover Norquist.  It is hard to see how his contention that Messrs. Romney and Ryan can’t be trusted to spend wisely on defense will help anybody but their opponents.

In remarks to the bipartisan Center for the National Interest, Norquist threw down the gauntlet to the Republican ticket. He declared he would fight defense spending increases, or even relief from the next, debilitating round of cuts.  These amount to a further half-a-trillion dollars in across-the-board cuts over ten years under what has been called a “doomsday mechanism” known on Capitol Hill as “sequestration.” What makes matters much worse is that these cuts come on top of nearly $800 billion in Pentagon budget reductions already in the pipeline – a fact the anti-tax activist studiously ignores.

For a guy whose ostensible expertise is domestic economic matters, it is doubly surprising that Grover Norquist fails to recognize another disastrous effect these enormous reductions in defense spending will have – on employment and communities all over the country.  Estimates run as high as 1 million jobs lost and $59 billion in direct lost earnings and $86.4 billion in gross state product in the first year alone.  (For a detailed analysis of the impact by congressional district, see the Defense Breakdown Reports at www.FortheCommonDefense.org/reports.)

What Norquist did do, however, is directly take on the GOP ticket by opining that “Other people need to lead the argument on how can conservatives lead a fight to have a serious national defense without wasting money,” Norquist said. “I wouldn’t ask Ryan to be the reformer of the defense establishment.”

The question occurs:  Just who does Grover Norquist think would be better suited to be stewards of the “defense establishment” and the national security it is charged with providing?  Having no expertise on these matters himself, in whom does he have more confidence than the people the Republican Party hopes will lead this nation for the next four years?

Based on Grover Norquist’s past history advising the last Republican administration (see www.MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com), several candidates come to mind, as noted in this CSPAN interview with moderate Muslim Stephen Suleyman Schwartz:

Abdurahman Alamoudi:  Alamoudi is a top Muslim Brotherhood operative and al Qaeda financier with whom Grover Norquist joined forces in 1998 to launch a Brotherhood front called the Islamic Free Market Institute.  Alamoudi’s purpose was, with Norquist’s considerable help, to run influence operations inside the conservative movement and Republican circles, including notably the George W. Bush 2000 presidential campaign.  Alamoudi should be available to help reorder our defenses as he is currently serving hard time in Supermax on terrorism-related charges.

Sami al-Arian:  Al-Arian also went to federal prison, in his case for running a designated terrorist organization, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, from his professor’s office at the University of South Florida.  But not before Grover Norquist helped him meet with Candidate Bush in March 2000 and subsequently extract from Mr. Bush a public commitment that, if elected, he would work to eliminate a key counter-terrorism tool: the confidential use of classified information in deportation proceedings against illegal aliens (like al-Arian’s brother-in-law, Mazen al-Najjar) so as to protect such intelligence from compromise.

Nihad Awad:  The co-founder of an aggressive Muslim Brotherhood front and Hamas fund-raising vehicle, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) also benefitted from Norquist’s help in gaining access to and running influence operations against the Bush ’43 team.  CAIR was listed in 2008 as an unindicted co-conspirator in the criminal prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation on charges of providing material for terrorism.

Muzammil Siddiqi:  To conclude this partial listing, Grover Norquist could surely also call for assistance on Siddiqi, yet another top Muslim Brotherhood leader and an influential Islamist cleric.  After all, Siddiqi owes him: Norquist aided in securing for him the role of representative of the Muslim faith at the national ecumenical 9/11 memorial service on September 14, 2001.  The Norquist-Alamoudi team also arranged later that month for Siddiqi to present President Bush with a Quran on the occasion of a private meeting at the White House. Such legitimation advanced considerably the subversive agenda Siddiqi and his comrades pursued as part of what they call “civilization jihad” against America.

Or perhaps Grover Norquist would turn to people like Trita Parsi, who even the state-controlled Iranian media have depicted as part of the “Iran Lobby” in America.  He certainly did before:  In 2007, Norquist created with the help of his Palestinian-American wife, Samah, an anti-defense group called the American Conservative Defense Alliance (ACDA). (Samah served on ACDA’s board of directors and as its corporate secretary).  And ACDA, in turn, was a founder of the Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran (CNAPI). ACDA’s address was that of Norquist’s ATR group, where CNAPI meetings were also held.

By 2008, CNAPI’s coalition was made up of more than 40 groups including: Parsi’s National Iranian American Council (NIAC), CAIR and other Islamists; many George Soros-funded radical leftist groups; and the Norquists’ vehicle for undermining the conservative stance on national security, ACDA.  Their common goals: to eliminate U.S. support for  the democracy activists opposed to the Tehran regime, to block  economic sanctions and to prevent any military action.

All these Norquist allies could, of course, be relied upon to back him in pressing for substantial cuts in U.S. defense expenditures.  They would presumably be happy, as Norquist put it Monday night, to join him in getting “the Republican Party…[to] reexamine the actual defense needs and then work from there to determine how much to spend.”

To be sure, a reexamination of those requirements as defined by Barack Obama is in order.  And our defense needs should indeed determine the resources applied to meet them.  But the nation – and most especially the Romney-Ryan campaign – can ill-afford to take advice from Grover Norquist and his friends, especially as it would obviously be predicated on dramatically reducing such military requirements.  It would also have the practical effect of making Obama’s ravaging of the nation’s defenses seem responsible.

At issue is not so much whether this Islamist-tied libertarian trusts Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan to manage the nation’s national security needs.  What we need to know is whether the GOP candidates trust Grover Norquist – and will they henceforth open their doors to him and the bad company he keeps?
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 601


« Reply #536 on: August 17, 2012, 08:48:46 AM »

The Huma Abedin-House of Saud Connection Exposed

Posted By Jamie Glazov On August 17, 2012

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist and Muslim Brotherhood activist who is the author of For God or For Tyranny.

FP: Walid Shoebat, welcome back to Frontpage. The interview we did last year, The Dark Muslim Brotherhood World of Huma Abedin, has become extremely relevant and I would like to discuss your new highly disturbing findings with you.

Shoebat: Thanks for having me again Jamie.

FP: Last Friday, President Obama voiced strong support for Huma Abedin during the Iftar dinner, saying the top aide to Secretary of State Hillary has been “nothing less than extraordinary in representing our country and the democratic values that we hold dear.”

Yet you have presented a 37-page dossier and WTC 1993 prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has linked the Abedins [here] and [here] to two terror supporting supervisors: al-Qaeda financier Abdullah Naseef and the spiritual head of the Muslim Brotherhood Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradwi. Moreover, you have now made a discovery that links the Abedins’ Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs enterprise to a sinister Wahhabist Saudi agenda called Muslim Minority Affairs.  Kindly share your new discovery with us.

Shoebat: President Obama needs to refute the facts and provide answers that are void of rhetoric. He can’t and he won’t. My findings all started as I was researching Huma’s father “Sayed Zaynul Abedin” in Arabic looking for further clues and suddenly there it was, an unbelievable document commissioned by the late King Fahd bin Abdul Aziz which can be downloaded [here] and [here]. I couldn’t believe my eyes. It had a long grandiose and fanciful title: The Efforts of the Servant of the Two Holy Places to Support The Muslim Minorities. It included Huma’s father and his work Muslim Minorities in the West published in 1998 as part of 29 works to construct this conspiratorial manifesto. (#11. P. 134) It explained the Muslim Minority Affairs (hereafter MMA) not simply as a title or as a religious or social entity but as a Saudi foreign policy of the Ministry of Religious Affairs.

It is an entire management system using MMA as the vehicle to catapult MMA to gain specific goals:

1—Recruit individual Muslims that live in non-Muslim lands and transform them as a collective unit by establishing centers, educational programs, mosques and organizations like ISNA and MSA in order to stop Muslim assimilation in non-Muslim host nations.

2—These then can influence the non-Muslim host nations by shifting the demographic scale due to their population growth in favor of the Saudi agenda.

3—A gradual implementation of Sharia will ensue by becoming a major revolutionary powerhouse.

4—This will tilt the host nation in favor of Muslims due to their increase as a population.

5—By this, a transformation then ensues in the host nation to gradually begin to implement a Wahhabi style Sharia.

6—The host state then will join the Muslim commonwealth.

Amazed, I began to research the Abedins’ Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs (hereafter IMMA) from historical accounts and testimonies. The two connected perfectly and what emerged was extremely troubling from a national security perspective: the Abedins for decades were actually serving a foreign entity, the government of Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Islamic Affairs and not American Democracy as President Obama stated. The Abedins’ IMMA is a Saudi-based branch implemented, commissioned and stationed through the same entity that produced this policy to serve Saudi Arabia’s and not American interests.

FP: Ok, but how exactly can you connect the Abedins’ IMMA to the Saudi MMA?

Shoebat: Easily, we have:

[1] Testimonies.

[2] The hierarchical construct of the Abedins’ IMMA fits the Saudi manifesto MMA chain of command.

and

[3] We have historical references showing IMMA was officially under these authorized organizations that were set up by Saudi Arabia.

These make an ironclad case. Here is an example; the manifesto states that:

“It [MMA] will work under the umbrella of the Muslim World League (MWL) and International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO) and World Association of Muslim Youth (WAMY) and others” (P. 6, also see P. 23)

The Arabic Dictionary on Media Icons by Zarkali confirms the above plan fits IMMA:

“Sayed Z. Abedin is a specialist on Muslim Minority Affairs issues… In the early 1970′s, Sayed Z. Abedin went to Saudi Arabia for one year as a visiting professor. He was welcomed by King Abdulaziz University, which provided him the means to create a scholarly program regarding Muslim Minorities. Dr. Abdullah Omar Naseef, the Dean of King Abdulaziz University then envisioned the creation of an academic entity called the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA), under the management of Ahmad Bahafzallah, who was the General Trustee for the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY). Professor Sayed Z. Abedin was encouraged to supervise the Muslim Minority Affairs and served as IMMA’s chief editor.” (Al-I’lam by Zarkali, is an encyclopedia on major figures in the Arabic-Muslim Media, P.p. 218)

Abdullah Ghazi, a graduate of Harvard University in Comparative Religion, provides additional testimony as he reminisces about how he met the Abedins:

“Later we shifted to Gary in Indiana State, 40 kms from Chicago. In 1976, I met Rabita (MWL) chief Dr. Abdullah Omar Naseef and Dr. Zainul Abedin of Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs. They encouraged me to take up this venture. The first book to come out was Our Prophet, an assignment from King Abdul Aziz University, Jeddah at Dr. Naseef’s behest…”

The history of the Abedins’ IMMA and of the Saudi manifesto’s hierarchy for MMA perfectly match. As we see, it was the Muslim World League (MWL) with Abdullah Omar Naseef, a Wahhabist who created IMMA under Ahmad Bahafzallah of World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY) to supervise the Abedins.

FP: What proof can you provide from the manifesto itself regarding the goals you mentioned?

Shoebat: We provided several snapshots from the manifesto itself:



This snapshot in English says:

“The Muslim societies in all continents of the world exist as either ‘Muslim Nation’ or ‘Muslim Minorities’. The assessment to determine what constitutes ‘state’ from a ‘minority state’ is done based on a number of measures. First the numbers scale, which is, if a nation has Muslims exceed half the population and its Constitution states that Islam is its official religion or that Islamic Sharia is its source of law, this state is then considered an Islamic state.” (p.29) “Since the number of Muslims has risen greatly in the last years where they became 1.3 billion Muslims. From these we have (900) million already in Muslim nations. The 400 million live as communities and as Muslim Minority” (p. 31) “… In Africa resides (250) million Muslims and in Europe resides (60) million Muslims and in North America and South America resides (10) million Muslims. So, according to these statistics it is expected that the number of Muslims will reach 2.6 billion six hundred thousand within a short span of time. The Muslims then will become a mighty and effective power in the world, of course, due to the increase in their numbers—then these will shift the demographic balance in their favor.” (p. 32).

It actually maps out with statistics and demographic analysis every nation where Muslim minorities exist. Remember, Huma’s mother is an expert on demography and world populations and contributed greatly to that effect in the JMMA journal. Regardless how small the numbers, these are expected to advance Wahhabist ideology.

FP: Ok, what about this “Wahhabist” link? Can you provide proof?

Shoebat: The document pulls no punches. It mentions “puritan Islam” as directed by “Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab,” the father of Wahhabism:


“Allah destined this region [Saudi Arabia] for a historic role. So He commissioned the two Imams—Muhammad bin Saud and Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab, may Allah have mercy upon them. But the times have passed on Imam Muhammad bin Saud by the emergence of the reformer—Muhammad bin AbdulWahhab. So the two Imams cooperated together to judge by what Allah brought forth, to fight against heresy and to bring Muslims back to puritan Islam.” (p. 8 )

FP: Is the United States mentioned in the plan?

Shoebat: Indeed, all over it, it discusses accomplishments in ISNA, MSA, banking, centers and even names the mosques designated to fulfill the plan in the United States, except there are obstacles. The United States is the home of the main obstacle that hinders their agenda—the Jews. There the manifesto shifts, sounding more like an Arab version of Mein Kampf. Here I include the original snapshot from the document itself and translated it to English:


“The greatest challenge that faces Muslims in the United States and Canada are the Jews who take advantage of their material ability and their media to distort the image of Islam and Muslims there by spreading their lies and distortions in the minds of the people in these countries. The Jews employ their efforts and direct their material wealth and their high positions to serve Zionist interests in the Arab region. They [the Jews] take advantage of situations to distort the image of Arabs and Muslims. The Zionist organizations spend enormous efforts to obstruct the spread of Islam in these areas.” (P. 79-80)

FP: This is scary stuff, and our media and government are completely silent and blind.

Let’s continue: how can we know that the MMA is not some isolated issue or something simply on paper?

Shoebat: McCarthy’s The Grand Jihad perhaps can provide a better analysis as to the billions spent by Saudi Arabia in the U.S. to advance their agendas. I am here to provide missing links, the proclamations from the Arabic texts that westerners don’t review, things considered taboos to discuss and translate, an insight from a defector who switched sides. That’s what I do.

As to the MMA concept, it is not isolated to the Abedins or even the Saudis. Salafists and the Muslim Brotherhood support the same concept, they even link to each other with the same title: “the Jurisprudence of Muslim Minority Affairs.”

In other words, the IMMA is not simply a name of an outfit; it represents a definition, a jurisprudence rooted in a sinister doctrine with short and long-term goals. Qaradawi has a similar manifesto for the Brotherhood. MMA scholars across the board have an obsession using this jurisprudence steering Muslims into this theocratic collective revolution.

FP: Give us some examples.

Shoebat: No problem. Take Europe’s Abdul-Majid al-Najjar, Assistant Secretary-General of the European Council for Fatwa and Research. While working on supposed building relations with the West, he adheres, in Arabic, to the same collectivist concept. In his “Creating a Fundamentalist Jurisprudence of the Muslim Minorities in the West,” he states:

“Islamic Sharia ruling is for every circumstance, time and place and in all circumstances… It was ordained that Islam was assigned the mission to inherit the globe. It is a mission possible through only the collective religious performance and mission impossible through individual religiosity.”

Let’s take Taha Jaber al-Alwani who is an ardent anti-Semite who, by the way, runs the United States Department of Defense program (out of all places) for training Muslim military chaplains in the U.S. military. This is the first time we translated this:

“… it [MMA] is a Jurisprudence for a group confined to its special circumstances which is allowed what others are not. Its exercise needs an understanding of social sciences, especially sociology, economics, political science and international relations… for the fundamentals of success for the Muslim Minority Jurisprudence it must adhere to the collective earth concept.” [here]

Alwani, a man commissioned by our government, even calls for a soon-to-be military conquest and provides an official fatwa permitting and preparing for the use of force:

“Commitment to the Quranic concept of Geography: The land belongs to Allah, his religion is Islam, and every country is already in the House of Islam—now in the present time—since they will be in the House of Islam by force in the near future. The whole of humanity is a Muslim Nation: it is either ‘the religion of the nation’ which has embraced this religion [Islam], or a ‘proselyte nation’ we are obliged to conquer.” (Alwani, The Jurisprudence of Muslim Minority Affairs. No. 7)

This is no mirage; it’s real and it is why we see people like Nidal Malik Hasan attacking military personnel and military installations from within; he snapped and couldn’t wait.

FP: So it’s on all levels, military and civil?

Shoebat: Yes. In America, even the Director of the Islamic Center of Lubbock Texas Mohammed bin Mukhtar Shanqeeti agrees:

“The Muslim Minority Jurisprudence is not a heresy or a novel, it’s an ancient doctrine filled with the provisions for Muslims living in Dar al-Kufr (House of the Heathen) or Dar Al-Harb (House of War).” [link, here]

Even the Abedins’ Journal for Muslim Minority Affairs (JMMA ) confirms that their program stems from these same extremist sources: “The theory of the Jurisprudence of Muslim Minorities is most easily clarified by shedding light on its founders” which the notes state are none other than Muslim Brotherhood “Yusuf al-Qaradawi” and “Taha Jabir al-Alwani”.

In a nutshell, The Muslim Minority Affairs program is part of a grand plan to destroy America from within, exactly as what the Muslim Brotherhood planned, which was exposed in the Holy Land Foundation trials.

FP: Tell us a bit more on the provisions for Muslims living in the House of the Heathen.

Shoebat: Now you are entering into how the plan combines two Jurisprudences; the Minority Affairs Jurisprudence and the Jurisprudence of Muruna (Flexibility). Muruna is the “process of permitting evils” specifically for Muslim Minorities that is “sanctioning prohibitions for the sake of an interest”. You can learn all about it [here]. This jurisprudence permits “reversing Sharia rulings” in order to “gain interests.”

So the rulings on marriage with non-Muslims as we have with Huma and Anthony Weiner now become sanctioned even if Sharia prohibits it.

While the media argues that Huma married a Jew as evidence for her assimilation, in actuality it’s more the reason for suspicion, especially since that her mother is a Muslim Brotherhood leader who never denounced the marriage. That with Huma’s years of service as part of a Wahhabi scheme provides reasonable concerns.

FP:  You keep referring to this character from Saudi Arabia, Abdullah Omar Naseef, as an al-Qaeda affiliate. What is the evidence that he is tied to al-Qaeda?

Shoebat: Besides much evidence reported on Abdullah Omar Naseef contributions for al-Qaeda, we have the WTC vs. Al Baraka, et. al. (see pp.384-386), It mentions Naseef, who arranged to meet Osama bin Laden and launch what seems like a major attack, right from one of Naseef’s Muslim World League (MWL) offices:

“…a Memo on IIRO [International Islamic Relief Organization] / MWL letterhead detailed a meeting between Abu Abdallah (Osama bin Laden), Dr. Abdullah Omar Naseef, Sheik Abdel Majeed Zindani, and Dhiaul Haq, in which it is stated that, ‘the attacks will be launched from them (these offices)… You must pursue finding an umbrella which you can stay under…and I prefer the name of the League (most likely, Muslim World League) because Dr. Naseef is one of the brothers…’”

While these statements were only in the preliminary documents that were removed in later documents, possibly since they are regarding older operations prior to 9/11, yet, Naseef, according to this, was in direct communication with Osama bin Laden; this might shed a different light on the matter of Huma Abedin. For years, she had close ties with Naseef. But despite this, Naseef was proven to have been an al-Qaeda financier. The Naseef-Huma connection has no degrees of separation as many claimed. These statements made by the media were simply false.

Andrew McCarthy wrote that Naseef could have escaped the civil lawsuits on a technicality:

“…he was named as a defendant in the civil case brought by victims of the 9/11 atrocities. (In 2010, a federal court dropped him from the suit — not because he was found to be uninvolved, but because a judge reasoned the American court lacked personal jurisdiction over him.)”

The Abedins went back and forth, setting foothold in India, where Huma’s parents worked during 1978 with Maulana Muhammad Yousuf of Jamaat-e-Islami. Yusuf came after Abu Al-Ala Maududi, who was key in the Tabligh in the Indian subcontinent’s equivalent of the Muslim Brotherhood. It has extensive ties to Wahhabists, including Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. They represent an extremist Salafist brand. Then somehow they were in Saudi Arabia working with Naseef who spearheaded IMMA and commissioned the Abedins from Saudi Arabia to launch the program is the U.S. and the United Kingdom. Do you think they circulated the earth promoting this program solely by themselves as part of an American dream?

FP: What can we do about this?

Shoebat: Here are some things citizens can do immediately:

1—Petition to bring Huma’s ex-boss Naseef to face American justice.

2—Connect the dots between the Saudi Wahhabist plans and the Abedins’ IMMA, only then can we begin to unravel why the Abedin family works with nefarious characters like Naseef and Qaradawi.

3—Understand how interlinked these organizations are, their layers and sub-layers.

4—IMMA was a family affair under Saudi management, a foreign entity that intends to do harm to United States interests.

5—Ask politicians why is it a taboo to discuss Huma Abedin, and demand they refute the facts and provide answers that are void of rhetoric.

6—Support these courageous Congressmen. These are heroes, not slanderers as McCain says. They represent the interest of the people and not the policy of silence. McCain says to question Abedin’s loyalty is “dangerous” when it is silence that is, in fact, dangerous.

FP: Thank you Walid for sharing this very important information with us.

Shoebat: My pleasure.
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31697


« Reply #537 on: August 20, 2012, 07:09:03 AM »

http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-biggest-d-c-spy-scandal-you-havent-heard-about-part-two/?singlepage=true
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 601


« Reply #538 on: August 22, 2012, 09:17:18 AM »

Jihad At the DNC

Posted By Robert Spencer On August 22, 2012

It is no surprise, after four years of Obama Administration pandering, Muslim groups have a prominent role at the upcoming Democratic National Convention in Charlotte. The Charlotte Observer reports that organizers expect as many as 20,000 Muslims to attend the “Jumah at the DNC” series of events being organized by the Bureau of Indigenous Muslim Affairs (BIMA). Among these events is an all-day “Islamic Cultural & Fun Fest,” which will include a “TownHall Issues Conference” that will address “issues such as Islamaphobia, Anti-Shariah, Middle Eastern Crisis, Patriot Act, National Defense Authorization Act and more.”

There is no doubt whatsoever that this “TownHall Issues Conference” will not include any discussion of Islamic jihad terror plotting in the U.S., or of how Muslim groups have tried to exaggerate the problem of “Islamophobia” by faking hate crimes. It is likewise certain that the “Anti-Shariah” issue will be portrayed as an attempt by bigoted Americans to restrict Muslim religious freedom, when in reality it is solely an attempt to prevent the political and supremacist aspects of Islamic law that are at variance with constitutional freedoms from gaining a foothold here. Certain also is that the discussions of the Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act will focus on how these measures are supposedly excessive and unfairly target Muslims.

The overall thrust of the entire “TownHall Issues Conference,” as is clear from its stated agenda, is to portray Muslims as the innocent victims of a bigoted, racist and “Islamophobic” government and law enforcement establishment that is unfairly scapegoating Muslims as a whole for the misguided deeds of a few on September 11, 2001. It will include no discussion of the many attempted jihad attacks against the U.S. since then, or of the successful ones, such as Nidal Malik Hasan’s massacre at Fort Hood or Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad’s murders outside a military recruiting station in Little Rock, Arkansas. Any and all scrutiny of the Muslim community in the U.S. will be portrayed as gratuitous and unwarranted. The assembled Democrats, meanwhile, will be falling all over themselves to promise that whatever domestic counter-terror apparatus the Obama administration has failed to dismantle during its first term will go under the knife during its second.

But the most disturbing aspect of the entire “Jumah at the DNC” is not the obvious victimhood-mongering of its agenda, but the people involved. The Democrats are playing host to an unsavory gang of Islamic supremacists with numerous ties to jihad groups. Even this is not surprising, but it should be a matter of concern to any Americans who are more aware of the jihad threat than the average politically correct Democrat pol.

Take, for example, BIMA spokesman Jibril Hough. Hough’s mosque, the Islamic Center of Charlotte, is owned by a Muslim Brotherhood group, the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), which was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Hamas terror funding case. When confronted about this on a radio show, Hough first professed not to be aware of the charges against NAIT, and then refused to disavow the organization, saying only that he himself was “not necessarily” a member of NAIT and: “I was not involved in the decision to allow NAIT to be the [title] holder.”

Meanwhile, the “Grand Imam” for Jumah at the DNC is none other than Siraj Wahhaj. Wahhaj is one of the most sought-after speakers on the Muslim circuit, and has addressed audiences all over the country; in 1991, he even became the first Muslim to give an invocation to the U.S. Congress. After 9/11, his renown as a moderate Muslim grew when he declared: “I now feel responsible to preach, actually to go on a jihad against extremism.” But as with so many other Muslim leaders in the U.S., Siraj Wahhaj is not as moderate as he may appear at first glance.

Wahhaj was several years ago designated a “potential unindicted co-conspirator” in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He himself has denounced this designation as essentially meaningless, but he didn’t earn it by doing nothing. In the early 1990s he squired the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel Rahman, all around New York City and New Jersey, sponsoring talks by him in area mosques. The Blind Sheikh, of course, is now serving a life sentence for his role in the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, as well as in jihad plots to blow up the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels.

When Wahhaj was traveling around with the Blind Sheikh, was Rahman “moderate,” and then became “radicalized”  later? Or did Rahman and Wahhaj share a supremacist and violent view of Islam, but Wahhaj is going about his jihad in a way that is less likely than Rahman’s to draw law enforcement scrutiny? No one ever asks Wahhaj such questions – least of all Democrat Party politicians.

Nor is Wahhaj’s association with the Blind Sheikh the only blot on his reputation as a “moderate.” He has warned that the United States will fall unless it “accepts the Islamic agenda.” He has also asserted that “if only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate.”

So why is such a man acting as the “Grand Imam” at “Jumah at the DNC”? The Democrats are so in thrall to multiculturalism that it is likely that few, if any, DNC organizers know or care about Wahhaj’s Islamic supremacist statements and ties. To raise any concerns about such a speaker would be “Islamophobic,” violating every rule of the anti-American, anti-Western ethos that prevails among so many Democrats today.

The worst thing about Siraj Wahhaj’s appearance at “Jumah at the DNC” is that it is so thoroughly unsurprising. What would be genuinely shocking would be if the DNC anywhere, at anytime, featured a speaker who spoke realistically about the jihad threat. But there is about as much chance of that as there is of the Democrats ditching Obama and nominating David Horowitz as their candidate for President of the United States.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 601


« Reply #539 on: August 22, 2012, 02:59:28 PM »

Huma Abedin, Islamist Connections and Willful Blindness

Posted By Jamie Glazov On August 22, 2012

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor and New York Times bestselling author who put the Blind Sheik behind bars in the first World Trade Center bombing.  He is the author of Willful Blindness and, most recently, of The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.

FP: Hi Andy, welcome back to Frontpage Interview.

You are carefully following the controversy over Huma Abedin, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, and her ties to Islamic supremacism. Give us an update on your findings. Walid Shoebat has discovered something quit startling lately, yes?

McCarthy: Thanks, Jamie, it’s a pleasure to be back.

You’re right, Walid Shoebat – who has done essential research in this area – did indeed come up with an eye-opening discovery. He has detailed it here, and I wrote about it here. It is an Arabic document that outlines the Saudi government’s efforts to propagate the Kingdom’s fundamentalist version of Islam and sharia (Islam’s legal system and framework for society). The document is called The Efforts of the Servant of the Two Holy Places, King Fahd bin Abdul Aziz, to Support the Muslim Minorities. Walid has described it as a “manifesto.”

It bears on the present controversy because Huma Abedin served for a dozen years as the assistant editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, publication of which was the main business of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs. Both the institute and the journal were founded by Abdullah Omar Naseef, a wealthy and influential Saudi academic who became a financier of the al Qaeda terror network as well as the secretary-general of Muslim World League – one of the most significant joint ventures of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Saudi government in terms of spreading Islamic supremacist ideology. Naseef recruited Huma Abedin’s parents to run the journal when it started in the late seventies, and it has been an Abedin family venture since that time, with Naseef remaining closely involved.

FP: Why “Muslim Minority Affairs”?

McCarthy: Well, that’s really the salience of Walid’s latest find. From the Saudi and Brotherhood perspective, “Muslim Minority Affairs” is not merely a title for an institute or a journal. It is a strategy and a jurisprudence of building the global Islamist movement by integrating into the West, resisting assimilation, establishing enclaves of Islamic supremacism, and pressuring host governments both to accommodate what become growing Muslim demands and to indulge the rule of sharia in these enclaves – which sets a precedent that facilitates the gradual incorporation of sharia elements in the law and culture of the host country.

This design, of course, has to be considered in context with what else we know about the Muslim Brotherhood. It has been brazen about its intention to “conquer America” and “conquer Europe” by dawa – the aggressive form of proselytism that pressures non-Muslim societies to adopt sharia incrementally. And in the Brotherhood’s private communications, as I explain in The Grand Jihad, it has described its work in America as a “grand jihad” or a “civilization jihad” to “eliminate and destroy Western civilization from within” by “sabotage.”

As I outlined in a speech at the National Press Club about two weeks ago, the overarching Saudi/Brotherhood design, coupled with Naseef’s key involvement and the substance of what one reads in the journal (a subject on which Andrew Bostom has done important work), underscores that the direct link between Ms. Abedin and Naseef is very troubling. Indeed, the intimate connection of the Abedin family with Naseef, their ties to such other Brotherhood luminaries as Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, and the connections not only to the Brotherhood but to organizations that have been formally designated as facilitators of terrorism, powerfully demonstrates that the five conservative members of the House of Representatives were absolutely right to raise concerns about Islamist influence in our government.

FP: So one would think that a lot of people owe Michelle Bachmann an apology, including the media. Where is the apology?

McCarthy: Congresswoman Bachmann knows Washington well enough not to be holding her breath waiting for an apology. What is really stunning and demoralizing to me, though, is that only five members of Congress – five out of 535 if you count both chambers – have had the conscientiousness and courage to stand up and be counted on this. We have an obvious national security problem, and it goes way beyond Huma Abedin. We not only have several people with significant Islamist ties being consulted by our government on foreign and domestic policy, including counterterrorism policy. We are simultaneously seeing American policy shift dramatically in a direction that favors the Muslim Brotherhood, an avowed, incorrigible enemy of America and the West. Yet, we can’t even get one percent of our elected federal representatives to raise an eyebrow? I’ll tell you what. I speak to a lot of people around the country, and a lot more than one percent of them are worried about what’s happening.

FP: Share with us a bit about Huma’s involvement with the MSA and what that signifies.

McCarthy: Yes, that’s disturbing, too. In 1997, Ms. Abedin was on the executive board of the Muslim Students Association at George Washington University in Washington – while she was an intern at the Clinton White House and while she was an assistant editor at Naseef’s journal. The Muslim Students Association is the foundation of the Muslim Brotherhood’s infrastructure – an infrastructure that the Brotherhood has quite intentionally constructed for the purpose of executing the “Muslim Minority Affairs” strategy of giving like-minded Muslims the space and fortitude to resist assimilation and demand accommodation. As I explained in The Grand Jihad, this strategy is also aptly described as “voluntary apartheid,” and one of its most influential proponents in Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, the Brotherhood’s chief sharia jurist.

The Brotherhood started the MSA in the early sixties and there are now hundreds of chapters at colleges and universities across the U.S. and Canada. Of course, thousands of students have been involved in these organizations. Many of them join for innocuous social reasons – to make friends with people of similar cultural background, etc. You have to be careful about over-generalizing: not everyone who is or ever has been part of a MSA chapter harbors sympathies for the Brotherhood and its ideology. Indeed, some MSA chapters – especially the ones that are not formally connected to the national organization (I should perhaps say the “continental” organization, since Canada is included) – reflect the debates about reform that are extraordinarily important and very much a part of Islam in the West.

Nevertheless, it is simply a fact that, as a whole, the MSA is a bastion of the Brotherhood’s brand of Islamic supremacism and that, as night follows day, the MSA has an alarming track record of its alumni going on not only to Islamist activism but even to violent jihad. Patrick Poole’s account here is a real eye-opener. And he makes the important point that many of the MSA members who’ve gotten involved in jihadism had leadership positions in their chapters. That is, the more immersed a young Muslim becomes in this Brotherhood enterprise, the more likely it is that he or she will become a committed agent in terms of aggressively spreading Islamist ideology.

The GWU chapter in which Ms. Abedin served on the executive board has a history worth noting here. Its chaplain in 2001 was Anwar al-Awlaki, the now notorious al Qaeda figure who was, back then, ministering to some of the 9/11 hijackers.

Futhermore, at Walid Shoebat’s website, Ben Barrack has pointed out that Mohamed Omeish was also a chaplain at GWU’s MSA chapter. He headed the International Islamic Relief Organization, which has been tied to the funding of al Qaeda. Omeish’s brother, Esam, headed the Muslim American Society, which is the Muslim Brotherhood’s quasi-official branch in the United States. (The Brotherhood has many affiliated organizations in which members participate, but the MAS was actually formed to be the Brotherhood’s formal presence here – although many Brothers have been ambivalent about whether a formal presence was needed or desirable.)

The Omeish brothers were closely associated with Abdurahman Alamoudi, who was once regarded as Washington’s model Muslim moderate by many of the same bipartisan Beltway elites who’ve taken shots at Michele Bachmann and her four conservative colleagues. Of course, Alamoudi is now serving a lengthy jail sentence, and we’ve learned that he was a major financial backer of al Qaeda and Hamas. As Paul Sperry has recounted at Frontpage, it was Esam Omeish who brought Awlaki in to be the imam at the Dar al-Hijra mosque in Virginia (I’ve written about that mosque, in The Grand Jihad and in this column). Awlaki and Mohammed Omeish overlapped for a time as chaplains and advisers to the MSA chapter at GWU. And as Ben Barrack points out, citing this Fox News report, Secretary of State Clinton – with Ms. Abedin as one of her top advisers – somehow managed to invite Esam Omeish to participate in a conference call the State Department organized for the purpose of discussing relations between our government and the Muslim community. By then, as I recount in The Grand Jihad, Esam Omeish was a fairly notorious figure in Washington: He had had to resign from a Virginia immigration panel to which he’d been appointed by the state’s Democratic governor, Tim Kaine, because videos surfaced in which he had praised the Palestinians for resorting to “the jihad way” so that “Palestine” could be “liberated.”

On that score, it is worth noting that Esam Omeish, like many Islamists of the Brotherhood stripe, is also a hard Left political activist – again, see Paul Sperry’s article on Omeish, which begins with him speaking at a Cindy Sheehan antiwar rally. The alliance between Islamists and Leftists is one of the major themes of my aforementioned book, The Grand Jihad.

FP: Share with us what you know and think about the overall Brotherhood influence on our government and our society’s willful blindness about it.

McCarthy: I think our society is becoming increasingly less willfully blind about it, which is one of its major disconnects with Washington.

As far as the federal government is concerned, it is worth remembering why we have a legal concept known as “conscious avoidance” or “willful blindness” (the latter, as you’ve been kind enough to mention, is the title of my first book, a memoir of the Blind Sheikh investigation). When people irresponsibly put their head in the sand, when they go out of their way to avoid, or at least pretend to avoid, knowledge of facts that bear critically upon their actions, the law no longer accepts their claims of ignorance – they are held accountable. If someone you have every reason to know is involved in the drug business pays you to transport a package across town to someone else you have every reason to know is involved in the drug business, you don’t get off the hook by claiming, “Well, gee, I never looked inside the package, I didn’t know there was heroin in it.” That is the stage we are at with government officials.

The Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates are being consulted on counterterrorism policy – to the point that our federal agencies are purging their training materials of references to Islam. The Obama administration recently issued a visa to a member of formally designated terrorist organization (the Blind Sheikh’s “Islamic Group” – Gama’at al-Islamia) and hosted him for talks at the White House about the future of Egypt – something that would be felony material support to terrorism if an ordinary American citizen did it. When the administration was called on it, the Homeland Security Secretary responded that we can expect more of the same in the future. The government is aligning with Brotherhood organizations across the region – in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and Syria. The administration has formed a “counterterrorism forum” with Turkey and other Islamist countries – excluding Israel (the world’s number one terrorism target) and essentially adopting the Muslim Brotherhood’s claims that terror attacks against Israel are not really “terrorism” (they are “resistance’ against an illegitimate “occupying” power). The administration is also colluding with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in an effort to impose unconstitutional restrictions on free speech that would make it difficult, if not legally impossible, to engage in frank discussions about the obvious nexus between Islamic supremacist ideology and sharia aggression (of both the violent and non-violent varieties).

The general public is much more agitated about the trajectory we are on than Washington is, and it expects the officials responsible to be held accountable. People are becoming informed, and once you’re informed, you have no tolerance for willful blindness.

FP: Andy McCarthy, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview. And thank you for your brave fight for the defense of our nation and civilization.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here. 
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #540 on: August 22, 2012, 04:40:29 PM »

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist and Muslim Brotherhood activist
Gee, with a resume like that, why wouldn't I blindly believe him?   shocked

Is there any RESPECTED conservative, much less a liberal who is critical of Abedin?  EVERYONE in leadership positions seems to think
she is a fine person.  It's a witch hunt with no substance.  Time to move on.

As for the other sources...., oh yeah, Objectivist1, you said you know and respect Gaffney,

So what is Bachmann’s source? Every one of her letters prominently cites Frank Gaffney, a former Reagan defense official who has become one of the country’s most prominent anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. Gaffney heads the Center for Security Policy and has for years been preaching to anyone who will listen that the Muslim Brotherhood is secretly infiltrating every aspect of American life in a grand scheme to impose Shariah law when we least expect it. For Gaffney, everyone is an agent of the Brotherhood, including CPAC, the big annual gathering of conservatives in Washington, D.C., and Grover Norquist, the prominent anti-tax activist who is married to a Muslim woman.

Gaffney’s persistent attacks against fellow conservatives got him booted from the American Conservative Union, the organization that puts on CPAC and includes notable hawks like former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton. As Ellison explained in his letter, “Mr. Gaffney’s views have been widely discredited, including by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and conservative organizations … After the ACU board conducted a full investigation of Mr. Gaffney’s accusations against Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan, the board found Mr. Gaffney’s accusations ‘reprehensible,’ ‘baseless’ and ‘false and unfounded.’ The ACU even barred Mr. Gaffney’s participation from CPAC in 2011.”
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 601


« Reply #541 on: August 22, 2012, 05:41:55 PM »

Note well how JDN conveniently fails to address any of the allegations presented IN GREAT DETAIL by these sources in the posts below.  The best defense he can evidently muster for his rather mindless and drone-like repetition of the term "witch-hunt" is to attack the sources themselves.  Nothing to see here - the sources are all lunatics - let's move on, shall we? 

Furthermore, JDN presents no evidence in support of these ad-hominem attacks other than hearsay, or third-party condemnations.

Rather pathetic and transparent attempts to avoid an actual substantive discussion, if you ask me.

Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #542 on: August 22, 2012, 06:00:37 PM »

Objectivist1; you don't get it. 

They are "allegations".  No facts....

Your Sources?  Wacko's and a "former" terrorist.

In contrast, I refer to individuals who have publicly defended Huma Abedin – respected Republican politicians like John McCain, John Boehner, Scott Brown, Marco Rubio, Jim Sensenbrenner, and Mike Simpson who all have strongly and unequivocally defended Ms. Abedin.

I could quote numerous Democrats too but I don't want to be accused of being political or biased.   evil

Who are you going to believe Objectivist1?  Your rogue band of rejects or McCain, Rubio, et al....?

We can have a discussion on the little Martian that visited you last night too, I'm suppose you could find a few lunatics to support your position,
but that doesn't make it factual or believable. 

If you ask me, I do suggest you move on before you are laughed off the page.

Or move it to the humor page at least so we can all have a good laugh.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31697


« Reply #543 on: August 22, 2012, 08:44:34 PM »

Unless I missed it JDN you did not address the McCarthy charges.  His creds seem pretty good to me.  As for being Obj being laughed off the page as the host of this page I would point out I'm not laughing.

Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #544 on: August 22, 2012, 11:24:02 PM »

Unless I missed it JDN you did not address the McCarthy charges.  His creds seem pretty good to me.  As for being Obj being laughed off the page as the host  of this page I would point out I'm not laughing.


Perhaps you need to develope a sense of humor.  grin

Fact: Objectivist1 references are incompetents and wakos.  Geller and Spencer?   huh  A former terrorist?  shocked  His friend Gaffney?  This is a joke.   As for the the McCarthy charges, as I said McCain, Rubio, et al (senior Republicans) think he's full of camel dung. As for the others objectivists1 quotes, they truly are Camel dung. Truly, the odds of Objectivist1 finding a credible source saying he had a visit from Mars is more credible and believable. I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt here and call it a joke, let's laugh at the humor.  Have you read the dung the Objectivest1 has posted on this subject?  No one can be that stupid to believe this stuff. Republican leaders don't believe this dung. No one who is credible believes this stuff. So yeah I think you should laugh.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31697


« Reply #545 on: August 23, 2012, 06:55:36 AM »

This thread has some 545 posts which have over 75,000 reads total.  That is a ratio of roughly 150 reads per post, which is one of the highest ratios on this forum.   The contents of this forum have definitely helped lead me to evolve my perspective over time to where I now consider plausible things that it would terrify John McCain to say.

While on occasion I find Geller to get , , , a bit imprecise, Spencer seems to me pretty serious, Shoebat to be as one might expect one who has had the profound inner conversion that he has had whereas you find the notion , , , laughable.

Given the kind of courage it takes to take on the liberal fascist machine at its most Orwellian, I can understand that in the context of the existential frustrations of being a Cassandra for any of these people.
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 601


« Reply #546 on: August 27, 2012, 07:05:36 AM »

A Disturbing Event: The American Conservative Union Embraces an Islamist

Posted By Raymond Ibrahim On August 27, 2012

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?

A few months ago, these questions reached another flashpoint in an unlikely setting. The incident took place at an irregular board meeting of the American Conservative Union, an organization usually intent on keeping wobbly Republicans honest. The rump group in attendance — several key board members told Frontpage they were not even aware the meeting had been called – voted “unanimously” to dismiss long-standing accusations against two ACU board members. The accusations had been made by Center for Security Policy head, Frank Gaffney. Their focus was on the activities of Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan, two prominent ACU board members, whom Gaffney claims are influential agents of Islamist agendas. The ACU’s dismissal of Gaffney’s claims was contained in a memo written by attorney Cleta Mitchell, who called them “reprehensible” — terms no less damning than McCain’s slap down of Michele Bachmann.

Frank Gaffney is a former defense official in the Reagan administration and first made these claims public in 2003 in an article, “A Troubling Influence,” which was published on this site. In introducing the article, Frontpage editor David Horowitz acknowledged that Norquist had played an important role in the conservative movement, but also described Gaffney’s claims as “the most disturbing that we at frontpagemag.com have ever published.” He further characterized them as “the most complete documentation extant of Grover Norquist’s activities in behalf of the Islamist Fifth Column.”

The Frontpage article documented Norquist’s links to supporters of Hamas and other Islamist organizations dedicated to “destroying the American civilization from within” in the words of a Muslim Brotherhood document, and its Israeli ally. These figures included Abdurahman Alamoudi—who is currently serving a lengthy sentence for his involvement in a terrorist plot—and Sami Al-Arian, who was the finance head of Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), a terrorist organization responsible for over a hundred suicide bombings in the Middle East. Before Alamoudi and Al-Arian were arrested, Norquist and Khan served as key facilitators between them and the Bush White House. Now that both have been convicted of terrorist activities, there can no longer be any doubt that they were working on behalf of America’s terrorist enemies.

Among the Norquist-sponsored initiatives furthering the Islamist agenda, according to Gaffney, was his effort to abolish the use of classified national defense intelligence evidence in terrorism cases. Islamist organizations and Norquist himself typically refer to this as “secret” evidence and suggest that the use of it offends the Constitution. But as former U.S. attorney Andrew McCarthy explains, the cases in which it is normally used are immigration proceedings, not criminal prosecutions. Unlike American citizens, aliens do not have the right to be in the United States in the first place, and should not be able to force disclosure of the nation’s defense secrets as the price tag for demanding that they leave. Sami Al-Arian was the prime-mover of the “secret evidence” campaign, which he launched to protect his brother-in-law, a member of his terror network, from a pending deportation.

In addition, Gaffney charges, Norquist used his own organization, Americans for Tax Reform, to circulate and promote a letter from Republican Muslims attacking conservatives opposed to the controversial “Ground Zero Mosque.” He also campaigned to protect the Iranian regime from sanctions, from its domestic opposition, and from military action against its nuclear program – all the while demanding draconian cuts in U.S. defense spending.

The other subject of Gaffney’s concerns is Suhail Khan, a Norquist protégé with longstanding personal and professional ties to a variety of Islamist movements. Khan’s father, the late Mahboob Khan, was a prominent member of the Muslim Brotherhood and one of the founders, in the 1960s, of the Muslim Students Association, the cornerstone of the Brotherhood’s American infrastructure. As Daniel Greenfield documents in his pamphlet, Muslim Hate Groups on Campus, the Muslim Students Association has been instrumental in indoctrinating young Muslims in Islamist ideology, and has an alarming legacy of senior members – Anwar Awlaki most prominent among them – graduating to positions of prominence in al Qaeda and other terrorist networks. In the 1980s, Mahboob Khan was instrumental in creating an MSA spinoff, the Islamic Society of North America or ISNA. ISNA became so deeply enmeshed in the funding of Hamas that it was named by federal prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation. [For more information on how the Muslim Brotherhood has targeted the United States for subversion, see Robert Spencer’s pamphlet, Muslim Brotherhood in America.]

Suhail Khan’s mother, Malika Khan, was a close partner in her late husband’s work, and is a long-time leader of another Brotherhood front, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which was created out of the Brotherhood’s Hamas-support network. Its parent organization was also an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial. Malika Khan currently serves on the Executive Committee of CAIR’s San Francisco chapter, which distinguished itself in 2011 by promoting a conference that urged Muslims not to co-operate with FBI investigations.

These familial activities are not incidental because Suhail has publicly embraced his parents’ “legacy,” and done so before Brotherhood audiences. Despite this background and thanks to Grover Norquist’s patronage, Suhail was able to gain access to the Bush 2000 campaign, and was then appointed to a position in the Bush administration. According to Gaffney, while working at the White House, Khan helped craft and disseminate deceptive notions such as “Islam means peace,” al Qaeda “hijacked” Islam, and jihad is only a “personal struggle,” never a holy war against infidels.

In 2001, Khan appeared on a platform with about-to-be-convicted terrorist and top Muslim Brotherhood figure, Abdurahman Alamoudi. The setting was an American Muslim Council conference in Washington. Alamoudi is the founder of the Council, and once explained to a Brotherhood audience: “I think, if we are outside this country, we can say ‘O Allah, destroy America.” But once we are here, our mission in this country is to change it….”

A video tape of the 2001 event shows Alamoudi heaping praise on Suhail and his father (see here from 5:38 on).  At the time, Khan was serving as the Muslim gatekeeper in the White House Office of Public Liaison, a role he used to afford access to Muslim Brotherhood guests. Introducing him, Alamoudi expressed the hope that Khan was preparing for higher office:

We have with us a dear brother, a pioneer, somebody who really started political activism in the Muslim community …. When it was a taboo for the Muslim community, no doubt about it. When Suhail Khan started not too many people were aware that we had to do something….Some of you saw him today in the White House, but inshallah soon you will see him in better places in the White House, inshallah. Maybe sometime as vicepresident soon, inshallah. Allahu Akbar!

The terrorist, Alamoudi, also had praise for Suhail’s father:

Suhail Khan is the son of a dear, dear brother who was a pioneer of Islam work himself. Many of you know his late father … who was part of all kinds of work … Suhail inherited from his father not only being a Muslim and a Muslim activist, but also being a Muslim political activist. [emphasis added]

After effusively thanking Alamoudi for these words, Suhail said: “Many of you, of course, knew my father. He was someone who dedicated his life to the community and I’ve always felt that I have to work in the same – those footsteps.”

The footsteps of Mahboob Khan have been traced to some un-reassuring places. Shortly after 9/11, the Washington Post reported that Mahboob Khan had played host to Ayman Zawahiri, second in command to Osama bin Laden, who had entered the U.S. in the mid-nineties to obtain funds and recruits for al Qaeda. One of his stops was at the al-Noor Mosque in California, a mosque founded by Mahboob Khan.

After 9/11, Suhail Khan had to give up his role at the White House as a result of the fallout from his Brotherhood associations. Yet with the support of Norquist, he managed to land on his feet and was given a political appointment in the Office of the Secretary of Transportation.

Aside from Khan’s multiple Islamist connections, Gaffney charges he has also been actively engaged in agendas championed by the Brotherhood, including trying to undo the statute making material support for terror a crime. That law was put into place in part because large sums of zakat—Islamic “charity” monies – were regularly going to fund the terrorist activities of Hamas and al Qaeda.

Is there validity, then, to Gaffney’s charges? In discussing Gaffney’s original article, David Horowitz told me:

What disturbed me most—and ultimately persuaded me that Frank was on to something—was the fact that Grover didn’t respond to Gaffney’s charges although I invited him to do so in Frontpage. Then when I caught up with Grover at a CPAC conference, and said he really needed to answer the charges, he brushed me off saying he didn’t have time – he was ‘too busy with the revolution,’ were the words he used, a reference to his conservative crusades. Then I spoke to Suhail, who had called me to complain about the claims Frank had made about his father. In this conversation, Suhail flat out denied them, saying his father was only a member of the mosque rather than its founder, and that he couldn’t remember an event with Zawahiri. When I asked Frank for his sources for these claims, he sent me the Washington Post article, which described Mahboob Khan’s role in founding the mosque and hosting Zawahiri. I sent this to Suhail for a reply, but never heard from him again. That made me realize there was something to be concerned about.

Khan was not so reticent – or in such denial — about his father’s Muslim Brotherhood activities when he appeared before audiences of the faithful, however. At a 1999 conference of the Islamic Society of North America, Suhail told those in attendance:

It is a special honor for me to be here before you today because I am always reminded of the legacy of my father, Dr. Mahboob Khan, an early founder of the Muslim Students Association in the mid-nineties and an active member of the organization through its growth and development in the Islamic Society of North America.

Despite these disturbing manifestations of Khan’s allegiances, Norquist sponsored Suhail to become a member of the board of the American Conservative Union in 2010. At this point, Gaffney’s concerns intensified. With Grover’s help, the Muslim Brotherhood was infiltrating the very heart of the conservative movement. By this time, however, Gaffney’s access to the ACU’s audiences was restricted. Because of his charges against Norquist, a very powerful member of the ACU Board, Gaffney had long since been barred from speaking at its annual CPAC gathering. But Horowitz, who was not a Washington insider like Gaffney, was a different story, and he was invited to keynote the 2011 CPAC conference. Horowitz used the occasion to address the issues raised by Norquist’s activities and Khan’s presence on the ACU Board, and to put them in historical context:

Over the last ten years, the influence of the Brotherhood has spread throughout our government. There is nothing new in this sad reality. In 1938, Whittaker Chambers attempted to warn President Roosevelt that one of his White House advisers, Alger Hiss, was a Soviet agent. When Roosevelt was given Chambers’ information, he laughed and disregarded it. Alger Hiss remained as the president’s adviser until the House Un-American Activities Committee flushed him out….

Frank Gaffney has been the courageous bringer of the bad news about Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan to the board of the American Conservative Union. Many good conservatives on the board have refused to believe the evidence of Suhail Khan’s Brotherhood allegiances and agendas. They are of the opinion that Suhail’s public appearances with Alamoudi and the Muslim Brotherhood fronts took place a decade ago, and that he doesn’t promote violent agendas. I understand this. My parents were Communists in the heyday of Stalin. The Party’s slogan was not “Bring on the dictatorship of the Proletariat” or “Revolution Now.” But that is what they believed. The slogan of the Communist Party was “Peace, Jobs and Democracy.”

The ACU’s response to Horowitz’s remarks was to withdraw his invitation to speak at CPAC events, although he had been a regular speaker over many years.

Earlier this year, Gaffney and his organization put together a ten-part video course called “The Muslim Brotherhood in America: The Enemy Within.” Featured in the course were the roles played by Norquist (Parts 3-7) and Khan (Part 4) in promoting and enabling Brotherhood influence operations. The Khan segment includes a clip (starting at 4:28) from the speech that Khan gave at a 1999 ISNA conference. In the speech, Khan embraces the well-known Muslim Brotherhood ethos:

The earliest defenders of Islam would defend [against] their more numerous and better equipped oppressors, because the early Muslims loved death—dying for the sake of Allah Almighty—more than the oppressors of Muslims love life.   This must be the case when we are fighting life’s other battles [i.e., politics].  What are our oppressors going to do with people like us? We are prepared to give our lives for the cause of Islam.  I have pledged my life’s work, inspired by my dear father’s shining legacy, and inspired further by my mother’s loving protection and support, to work for the ummah.

This is classic jihadist rhetoric. (“We love death, the U.S. loves life; that is the big difference between us,” explained Osama bin Laden in one of his fatwas.) In effect, Khan praised history’s earliest jihadists, portraying them as “defenders” and their victims as “oppressors,” just as al Qaeda does in its present-day fatwas. Khan used the same language that glorifies “martyrdom” (or suicide-attacks) on behalf of Islam. (“Death in the service of Allah is our highest aspiration” is part of the Muslim Brotherhood motto.) Khan then praised his father’s Muslim Brotherhood “legacy,” and pledged his life’s work to the Muslim umma, which translated means the “Islamic nation.”

Are these remarks merely a “youthful” indiscretion? Horowitz, whose biography makes him something of an authority on second thoughts, answered the question during his keynote address at the 2011 CPAC event:

As for the question of whether Suhail Khan believes now what he openly said then, my answer is this: When an honest person has been a member of a destructive movement and leaves it, he will feel compelled to repudiate it publicly and to warn others of the dangers it poses. This is a sure test of whether someone has left the Muslim Brotherhood or not.

Suhail Khan has never repudiated his father’s Muslim Brotherhood legacy or the patronage of the convicted terrorist, Abdurahman Alamoudi. Nor has he disavowed his praise for Islamic martyrdom, nor has he taken steps to warn his fellow Americans of the Islamist threat posed by his past and present associates (part 4 of Gaffney’s videos documents Khan’s continuing involvement with Mohamed Magid, Muzammil Siddiqi, Nihad Awad and other top Muslim Brotherhood figures and organizations.) Instead, he has denied that the Muslim Brotherhood even operates in America.

On September 21, 2011, the ACU finally took up the issue of Frank’s charges. The occasion was an unusual meeting of the ACU board, which normally meets only twice a year – in Washington and via teleconference. This particular meeting took place in Orlando, Florida, where an ACU event was being held. Because of the unusual venue, far away from ACU headquarters, most of the ACU board members did not attend, including several whom Frontpage talked to who had not been informed of the meeting and who were not in sympathy with its result. When the rump board met, they voted unanimously to adopt a resolution that dismissed Gaffney’s charges out of hand, and declared their “complete confidence in the loyalty of Suhail Khan and Grover Norquist to the United States,” and “welcome[d] their continued participation in the work of ACU and of the American conservative movement.” In adopting this resolution, the board members also declared that they “profoundly regret and reject as unwarranted the past and on-going attacks upon their patriotism and character.”

In making its decision, the board appears to have relied entirely on a memorandum provided by one of its members, Cleta Mitchell, a well-known and widely admired conservative lawyer. In her memorandum, and despite its sweeping conclusions, Mitchell addressed the specifics of only one of Gaffney’s many findings, while categorically dismissing them all: “There is absolutely nothing contained in any of the materials” presented by Gaffney, she wrote, “that in any way linked Suhail (or Grover) to such [‘Muslim extremist’] organizations or their activities.”

The one specific that Mitchell took issue with was an unlikely one given her categorical statement there was absolutely nothing that in any way linked Suhail to Islamist organizations or their activities. This was the video of Khan’s 1999 address to the Islamic Society of North America featured in Gaffney’s video course. ISNA is the principal Muslim Brotherhood organization in the United States; it was founded by Suhail Khan’s own parents; and before this audience Khan spoke in the ritualistic language of the Muslim Brotherhood about how Muslim warriors love death more than their opponents love life, about his devotion to the Muslim nation, and his readiness to die for Allah. Mitchell dismissed his comments in these words: “Yet, even in that speech, there is nothing that suggests Suhail is unpatriotic or subversive.  The clip from the speech is simply (in my view) rhetoric that is, quite frankly, meaningless in terms of substantiating any of Mr. Gaffney’s allegations.” But is it meaningless to paraphrase the motto of the Muslim Brotherhood to a meeting of the most important Muslim Brotherhood organization in the United States, and embrace it as one’s own aspiration?

Mitchell rests her case against Gaffney and in behalf of Khan on a single point: “Suhail was subject to FBI background checks and cleared to work directly for the President and Vice-President? How would the FBI have ‘missed’ ties to such groups if those ties existed?”

In fact, as Gaffney observes — under the right circumstances, and with the right sponsors — it would have overlooked them quite easily. “The fact that Suhail Khan received a security clearance during his time in government is an indictment of the clearance process, not evidence that his background is problem-free: Ali Mohammad—Osama bin Laden’s ‘first trainer’ and longtime al Qaeda operative—also went through a background check and received a security clearance to work with the federal government. Major Nidal Hassan, the Fort Hood killer, not only obtained a clearance, he was even promoted from captain to major despite his monitored communications with al Qaeda leader Anwar Awlaki, and the fact that in the course of his military education, he announced during a lecture that it was the duty of Muslims under shariah to kill infidels preparing to attack other Muslims (i.e., U.S. soldiers awaiting deployment to Afghanistan).

Horowitz agrees. He points to the fact that Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff, has a top security clearance, notwithstanding the undisputed fact that her closest family members have been Muslim Brotherhood leaders and that for twelve years prior to being hired by the State Department, she worked for an Islamist organization founded and run by Abdullah Omar Naseef, a top funder of Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network, and a Muslim Brotherhood eminence.

Given these well-known facts, Khan’s security clearance seems a pretty thin reed on which to base so sweeping a dismissal of Gaffney’s concerns, let alone refer to them as “reprehensible.” To understand her position better, I tried to interview Mitchell, but she declined to comment, saying by email “I am precluded from talking to anyone about this because of the confidentiality provisions of the boards on which I serve which have been dealing with Frank Gaffney issues.”

That confidentiality, however, had been already breached when someone on the ACU board leaked the details of its Orlando meeting and the contents of Mitchell’s letter – and leaked them not to conservatives but to the left-wing organization “ThinkProgress.” One of the things I wanted to ask Mitchell was how she thought this letter might have been leaked and by whom (Norquist? Khan?). Accompanying ThinkProgress’s release of the Mitchell letter was this summary on its website of what had transpired:

Gaffney … was unanimously condemned by the one of the most powerful conservative organizations in America, as two documents obtained exclusively by ThinkProgress this week show.  Last September, the board of the American Conservative Union (ACU), which puts on CPAC and includes top leaders of various factions of the conservative movement, unanimously passed a resolution (read it here) condemning the “false and unfounded” attacks Gaffney had made against Norquist and Khan, both board members, after having another board member, Cleta Mitchell, look into Gaffney’s serious charges of sedition and abetting an enemy.  In a letter to the ACU board (read it here), Mitchell, a prominent and very conservative attorney, said that after reviewing the “evidence” Gaffney presented (including a lengthy PowerPoint presentation and DVDs video laying out the case against Norquist and Khan), she found his “ceaseless war” to be “reprehensible.”

Another issue I wanted to ask Mitchell about was what she thought of the fact that her sweeping memo along with the leak had given powerful ammunition to the Brotherhood and its agents in their campaign to silence critics of Islamism. ThinkProgress had previously published a “report” on “Islamophobia” (following an earlier one by CAIR on the same subject). As David Horowitz and Robert Spencer demonstrate in their pamphlet, Islamophobia: Thought Crime of the Totalitarian Future, Islamophobia is a term actually invented by the Muslim Brotherhood to silence its critics. The ThinkProgress report on Islamophobia attacked a dozen leading conservative critics of the Islamic jihad (also singled out by CAIR), including Frank Gaffney, as “bigots” and “racists.” Future editions of the report and future left-wing attacks will undoubtedly draw on the testimony of ACU board.

When asked about these events, Gaffney noted the irregular nature of the board meeting that condemned him, and deplored its lack of due-diligence that led to its categorical dismissal of the readily available evidence. He stated:

By acting solely on the basis of Mitchell’s defamatory and superficial memorandum, and then through the deliberate leak to a Soros-funded leftwing organization, the leadership of the American Conservative Union has discredited itself and given ammunition to those who want to prevent legitimate inquiries into Islamist influences in Washington.

This seems a more than reasonable concern. Since many prominent ACU board members were not present to conduct this auto-da-fé, there appears to be ample basis for it to seek a second opinion in regard to the case of Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan.  Should it fail to do so, the ACU board will simply reinforce suspicions that it has been successfully infiltrated and subjected to an influence operation by those opposed to everything for which the conservative movement stands.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 601


« Reply #547 on: August 27, 2012, 10:02:27 AM »

This is referenced in the article I posted previously.  Definitely worth watching:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jDjdggtA-M&feature=player_embedded

Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #548 on: August 27, 2012, 02:07:52 PM »

Objectivist1; as your article points out;
"Gaffney … was unanimously condemned by the one of the most powerful conservative organizations in America"
Note, I didn't say "liberal". 

ANOTHER conservative group, so it seems one well known and RESPECTED Republican after another seems to be defending Abedin.  I suppose i could
list the Democrats who support Abedin as well, but I don't want to overwhelm you.   evil
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #549 on: August 27, 2012, 02:12:54 PM »

The threat isn't Islam, "Statistics show that nearly two decades after the Oklahoma City bombing, right-wing extremism — not Muslim-led terrorism — is a growing threat."

"The Islamophobia that led Breivik to his ruinous binge, for example, came from his digestion of the writings of several anti-Muslim activists, including bloggers Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, who head the group Stop the Islamization of America. Breivik mentioned them in his 1,500-page manifesto, posted online. The pair has agitated some of the country's nastiest displays of prejudice. Their bus advertisements equating the Palestinian cause with jihad created a stir in New York and San Francisco, and they fanned the flames of the uproar over the Park51 Islamic Community Center in 2010.

Damningly, they see their mission as Breivik saw his: They call themselves "freedom fighters" on a valorous journey to save the world from Muslims. But when it was publicized that the Norway killer mentioned Spencer and Geller in his writings, they cried foul. "Clearly this individual is insane," Spencer wrote on his blog. After Breivik's initial psychological evaluation Geller expressed relief, writing, that Breivik was "declared certifiably insane, which was evident by his actions and his ten-years-in-the-making manifesto."

The magnitude of Breivik's butchery was apparently sufficient evidence of his psychosis. No normal person, in Geller and Spencer's view, would ever do such a thing. But only if that person is not a Muslim. When Muslims engage in violence, they are represented by Islamophobes as ordinary believers acting in a way that aligns with tenets of their faith, not fringe lunatics whose delusional religious interpretations lead them to a monstrous end. Though Spencer and Geller denounced Breivik's violence, they never rejected his anti-Muslim ideas. And that is a problem."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-lean-breivik-hate-groups-u.s.-20120826,0,7942204.story
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 16 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!