Audio: The Blind Sheikh, Benghazi and the Case for Impeaching Obama administration officials

On today's program, I attempted to lay out the case for the impeachment of Obama administration officials over the Benghazi attacks based on what I believe to be smoking gun evidence that Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood president was involved in those attacks:

The above program expounded on information contained in the report below, published one day earlier:

By Walid Shoebat, Ben Barrack and Keith Davies

A Libyan intelligence document has been produced that directly implicates Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood president Mohammed Mursi in the attacks on American installations in Benghazi on 9/11/12. Those who attempt to discredit this document run into trouble when it is coupled with real-time video we uncovered on 9/13/12. In that video, gunmen at the scene of the attack can be heard declaring that they were sent by Mursi.

After weeks of attempting to push the narrative that a video was responsible, the Obama administration ultimately had to concede that the attacks in Benghazi were terrorist in nature. A few months after 9/11/12, the top lawyer for the Pentagon stated that the war on terror should be waged by "law enforcement and intelligence agencies".

Based on the Obama administration's standard, the Benghazi attacks should be treated as a crime instead of as an act of war. Therefore, let us bring forth the evidence, which implicates the leader of a nation state (Egypt) in the attack and warrants a grand jury (House of Representatives) investigation to decide if administration officials should be indicted (impeached).

Since we're deciding who to indict, we must look at evidence of involvement in the attack. Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood President - Mohammed Mursi - is a good place to start. Our first two exhibits are both damning but when taken together, may just constitute a 'smoking gun'. EXHIBIT A is a video shot from a cell phone at the scene of the attacks. In this video, gunmen are seen running toward the camera, toward other gunmen. At one point - in Arabic which we have confirmed - one approaching gunman says, "Don’t Shoot us! We were sent by Mursi!". Even though the video is in Arabic, you can discern the word "Mursi".



A Libyan Intelligence document (EXHIBIT B) has now been brought forward by credible Arabic translator Raymond Ibrahim. This document discusses the confessions of six members of an Egyptian Ansar al-Sharia cell who were arrested and found to be involved in the Benghazi attacks. Ibrahim reported the following about this document:

It discusses the preliminary findings of the investigation, specifically concerning an “Egyptian cell” which was involved in the consulate attack. “Based on confessions derived from some of those arrested at the scene” six people, “all of them Egyptians” from the jihad group Ansar al-Sharia (“Supporters of Islamic Law), were arrested.

According to the report, during interrogations, these Egyptian jihadi cell members “confessed to very serious and important information concerning the financial sources of the group and the planners of the event and the storming and burning of the U.S. consulate in Benghazi…. And among the more prominent figures whose names were mentioned by cell members during confessions were: Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi...

Libyan Intelligence Document translated by Ibrahim (EXHIBIT B)

That the attack was planned and involved foreigners corroborates what Libyan President Mohamed Yousef el-Magariaf told CBS News' Bob Scheiffer on Face the Nation on Sunday, September 16th (EXHIBIT C):

BOB SCHIEFFER: And you believe that this was the work of al Qaeda and you believe that it was led by foreigners. Is that-- is that what you are telling us?

MOHAMED YOUSEF EL-MAGARIAF: It was planned-- definitely, it was planned by foreigners, by people who-- who entered the country a few months ago, and they were planning this criminal act since their-- since their arrival.

Relative to Mursi's alleged involvement, El-Magariaf provided only circumstantial evidence by identifying attackers as being "foreigners" but in retrospect, the Libyan president's claims that day are corroborated by the Libyan Intelligence document and the real-time video. It is for this reason that we request he be required to testify in front of the grand jury.

Also on September 16, 2012, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday talk shows and asserted the attack was the result of a spontaneous demonstration in response to a video. Here are quotes from Rice's appearance during on ABC This Week, during which she said the following (EXHIBIT D):

“What happened this week in Cairo, in Benghazi, in many other parts of the region was a result, a direct result of a heinous and offensive video that was widely disseminated, that the U.S. Government had nothing to do with, which we have made clear is reprehensible and disgusting.”

At a minimum, Rice was directing attention away from Mursi's involvement with this demonstrably false statement. A short time later, she went as far as directly defending Mursi:

"President Obama picked up the phone and talked to President Mursi in Egypt and as soon as he did that, the security provided to our personnel and our embassies dramatically increased... President Mursi has been out repeatedly and said that he condemns this violence. He's called off... and his people have called off any further demonstrations and have made very clear, that this has to stop."

Rice attempted to leave viewers with two impressions, one demonstrably false and the other belied by hard evidence:

1. A video was responsible
2. Mursi was not involved

At this point, we'd like to introduce an exchange between House Oversight Committee member, Rep. Trey Gowdy and Gregory Hicks, a whistleblower and the top-ranking State Department official in Libya once Ambassador Stevens was murdered (EXHIBIT E). This entire exchange is being introduced as evidence but we ask you, the Grand Jury, to pay particularly close attention at the 1:45 mark, when Gowdy introduces the name Beth Jones and reads from an email she sent to several State Department officials on September 12th, one day after the attack. In her email, Jones wrote the following:

"I spoke to the Libyan Ambassador... When he said his government suspected that former Gadhafi regime elements carried out the attacks, I told him that the group that conducted the attacks - Ansar al-Sharia - is affiliated with Islamic terrorists."

On September 12th, Jones corroborated the claims made in the Libyan Intelligence document (EXHIBIT B) that an Egyptian Ansar al-Sharia cell was involved in the attacks, which corroborates the real-time video (EXHIBIT A). Yet, four days later - after this reality must have been further demonstrated, Rice's statements only served to cover-up the involvement of Mursi and Ansar al-Sharia by extension.

Moreover, Hicks charged that by contradicting the Libyan president, Rice seriously chilled the willingness of the Libyan government to allow FBI Investigators access to what the Obama administration viewed as a crime scene. As such, the crime scene was contaminated and Rice's lies may constitute an obstruction of justice charge.



The first indications that the Obama administration would decide to point to the video as being responsible for the Benghazi attacks appeared to come soon after it was learned that Sean Smith had been killed. There is cause to believe that news of Smith's death may have precipitated the decision to point to the video. A Press Release (EXHIBIT F) bearing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's name was released some time prior to 10:42pm EST that night. This is known because an AP article (EXHIBIT G) published at that time made reference to Clinton's statement as well as to Smith's death:

EXHIBIT F

In the days after September 11th, President Mursi seemed to adopt the narrative of the Obama administration relative to the video being responsible for causing them. He did so, ironically enough, at the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) in New York City on September 25th (EXHIBIT H).



EXHIBITS I and J are two video excerpts from President Obama's speech at the United Nations on September 25th, the same day that Mursi spoke at the CGI. During the speech, Obama echoes what Rice said about his defense of Mursi. Yet, Obama defended him publicly two weeks later, even after intelligence about Mursi's role had been readily available:



Obama again identifies the video as being responsible for the attack:

Ever since assuming the office of President on June 30, 2012, Mursi has been extremely clear about his strong desire to have the "Blind Sheikh" released. The Washington Post reported that Mursi "assumed office with a pledge to press the United States for Abdel Rahman's release" and that al-Qaeda's number one - Ayman al-Zawahiri - echoed the sentiment (EXHIBIT K).

Fox News reported on July 3, 2012, that Mursi "proclaimed to hundreds of thousands of supporters in Tahir Square... that he will gain the release of Rahman" (EXHIBIT L).

In an interview between CNN's Wolf Blitzer and Mursi from January 7th of this year, Mursi doubled down on his support for the release of Rahman (the "Blind Sheikh") while making an appeal for sympathy for the mass murderer (EXHIBIT M):

While admitting his desire for the release of the "Blind Sheikh", Mursi said that if release is not possible, increased visitation and freedom should be granted to Rahman. A letter attributed to Rahman appeared in an al-Qaeda's Inspire magazine (EXHIBIT N). In an article published by The Hill, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) pointed to this letter in which the convicted terrorist is credited with ordering a bombing in western Egypt in 1997 that killed dozens of people. This demonstrated that the "Blind Sheikh" still has deadly tentacles.

Four-star Admiral James Lyons (Ret.) who on November 14, 2012, appeared on Fox Business Network with Lou Dobbs (EXHIBIT O). During that interview, Lyons said he believed the only reason that made any sense relative to Ambassador Stevens being in Benghazi on 9/11 was a kidnapping operation in which Stevens could be traded for the "Blind Sheikh":

Consider the itinerary for Ambassador Stevens, who arrived in Benghazi on 9/10/12 and was scheduled to depart on 9/14/12 (EXHIBIT P). That the State Department's top official in Libya would be sent to Benghazi one day before the anniversary of 9/11 is indeed vexing but that he would be sent to a location that was woefully unprotected and had been attacked with an I.E.D. that blew a large hole in the perimeter wall is beyond troubling. There had been several terrorist attacks on western installations as well prior to September 11th as chronicled in a letter (EXHIBIT Q) from House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa to President Barack Obama.

Amazingly, on September 28, 2012, after evidence implicating Mursi in the attacks in Benghazi had become available, the Obama administration announced that it would be providing Mursi's government with $450 Million, despite protestations from Congress. A New York Times article (EXHIBIT R) outlined the details of the aid package:

The Obama administration notified Congress on Friday that it would provide Egypt’s new government an emergency cash infusion of $450 million, but the aid immediately encountered resistance from a prominent lawmaker wary of foreign aid and Egypt’s new course under the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood.

An act of war, which probable cause suggests, Mursi was involved in perpetrating against the United States in Benghazi, is not usually met with a multi-million dollar aid package.

However, if there were a deal between Obama administration officials and Mursi administration officials, to stage a kidnapping operation in which Stevens was captured and subsequently exchanged for the "Blind Sheikh", which side would stand to lose more if the truth were to come out?

While still president-elect, Mursi attempted to satiate his base by pledging to have the "Blind Sheikh" freed; it was practically part of his platform. If there had been a deal that were made public, Mursi's stock would most assuredly rise among his base. Conversely, if such a truth were to be made known, Obama would be finished.

This would grant Mursi significant leverage. Again, we take the opportunity to underscore that the Obama administration had to have known about the high probability of Mursi's involvement in the attacks as it was cutting a check for $450 Million on September 28th, barely more than two weeks later.

Fast forward a couple of months later when the Obama administration sent four F-16 fighter jets to Egypt. This was done, in part, to honor a foreign aid package that had been drafted in 2010, when Hosni Mubarak was still president. This deal required the U.S. to send more than a dozen F-16's and 200 Abrams tanks to Egypt over the course of 2013. As a Fox News article (EXHIBIT S) points out, critics in Congress expressed opposition to honoring the agreement because Mursi was in power, though these objections did not include evidence implicating Mursi in the Benghazi attacks.

In March of 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry announced that Egypt would be receiving another $250 Million in aid from the Obama administration. This rankled more members of Congress, particularly Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who had served as the chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. She was quoted in another Fox News article (EXHIBIT T) as saying:

"With sequestration forcing our nation to face billions of dollars in cuts across the government, it is unfathomable that the administration would send funds unconditionally to the Muslim Brotherhood-led government."

We must emphasize that Ros-Lehtinen's objections, though forceful, were not made on the basis of strong evidence implicating Mursi's involvement in the Benghazi attacks.

Now, as the situation in Egypt has become increasingly more violent and tenuous, the Obama administration is sending 400 troops from the site of the 2009 Jihad attack at Fort Hood, TX that left 14 dead and 32 wounded, to Egypt on a "peacekeeping mission" according to a Fort Hood press release (EXHIBIT U).

The behavior of the Obama administration relative to its assistance to Mursi warrants further investigation into whether the Obama administration may be the victim of blackmail.

This leads to our next witness, former C.I.A. Director David Petraeus (EXHIBIT V). Evidence suggests that Petraeus may have punished by the Obama administration when he did not sign on to the talking points that would ultimately be used by Ambassador Rice on September 16th. As references to Al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia were being scrubbed from the talking points, Petraeus sent an email at 2:27 PM one day earlier in which he wrote, "Frankly, I'd just as soon not use this, then..." (EXHIBIT W):

EXHIBIT W

On November 7, 2012, one day after Barack Obama's re-election, Petraeus' boss - James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence - advises the White House that Petraeus may resign over an extra-marital affair being made public. It is subsequently learned that the FBI had known about the affair for months and that Attorney General Eric Holder had known about it for weeks. During an appearance on the Fox News Channel on November 13th, Washington Post writer Charles Krauthammer seemed convinced that Petraeus had been punished for not endorsing the talking points about Benghazi (EXHIBIT X):



Whereas it is demonstrable that the Obama administration was likely punitive in its treatment of David Petraeus when the C.I.A. Director didn't sign off on the talking points, it is therefore alleged, based on factual and circumstantial evidence that the Obama administration may also be a victim of blackmail from the nation-state of Egypt and its Muslim Brotherhood President, Mohammed Mursi.

Pursuant to the premise that acts of terror must be treated as criminal acts, it is our view that this evidence is more than sufficient to convene a grand jury to indict Mursi and to draw up articles of impeachment for Obama administration officials.

Since the Clinton administration, a common refrain that has been heard - especially from the political left - is that terrorists must be treated as criminals and terrorist attacks should be treated as prosecutable crimes. A perfect example can be found in the case of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (the "Blind Sheikh") who was successfully prosecuted and given a life sentence for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

If the Benghazi attacks were prosecutable crimes, we suggest that a grand jury is long overdue.

In politics, that's equivalent to articles of impeachment.

Leftists just Refuse to Learn: Founder of Group that helped overthrow Mubarak face to face with reality

Ahmed Maher is an Egyptian who co-founded the April 6th Movement, a leftist group formed circa 2008 to fight for social justice and other left-wing causes in Egypt and elsewhere. Ultimately, Maher's movement was instrumental in the overthrow of Egypt's Hosni Mubarak in early 2011.

Now, two years later, an Irish news source is reporting that Maher has come to a realization. According to RTE News, Mather tweeted the following after brutal crackdowns on protesters by the Muslim Brotherhood president Mohamed Morsi. Here is Maher's tweet:

"Mursi has been stripped bare and has lost his legitimacy. Done," tweeted Ahmed Maher, founder of the April 6 youth movement that helped launch the anti-Mubarak protests.

In the fall of 2011, several months after Mubarak's fall, the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement went on an offensive. Van Jones, fellow at the Center for American Progress (CAP) and former Obama administration Green Jobs czar, promoted OWS publicly on MSNBC. On 9/29/11, he called for "an American fall" (a not-so-subtle reference to 'Arab Spring'). About six weeks later - on CNN - Jones called for ratcheting up the protests.

Let's get back to Maher for a moment.

Jones' CAP caught up with Maher, who had traveled to the U.S. and was at Occupy Washington, D.C. a few weeks after Jones called for that 'American fall' on MSNBC. Here is the video of that interview:



If you had difficulty understanding Maher, TP has the transcript.

This should be an extremely teachable moment not just for Maher but for all of the leftists in the U.S. Perhaps no one has enunciated this dynamic as well as Andrew McCarthy, who wrote in his book - The Grand Jihad:

Revolutionaries of Islam and the Left make fast friends when there is a common enemy to besiege. Leftists, however are essentially nihilists whose hazy vision prioritizes power over what is to be done with power. They are biddable. Islamists, who have very settled convictions about what is to be done with power, are much less so. Even their compromises keep their long-term goals in their sights. Thus do Leftists consistently overrate their ability to control Islamists. Factoring the common denominator, power, out of the equation, something always beats nothing.

While the left in America - to include the Obama administration - spends practically every waking moment plotting to defeat Christians, conservatives, and Republicans, groups like the Muslim Brotherhood egg them on while Obama's ventriloquist dummies run interference for Brotherhood groups in America through the media.

Unfortunately, it's not just the left in America that is furthering the cause of Islamists. It's also the John McCain wing of the Republican Party.

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced a bill that would stop shipment of Abrams tanks to the Muslim Brotherhood's Mohamed Morsi in Egypt. More Republicans voted to continue sending those tanks than those who sided with Paul.

What happened to Maher is another in a long line of examples that western leaders continue to refuse to learn from.

Perhaps those leaders should start reading their Bibles.

Video: Greta interviews Hillary Clinton about Middle East / Benghazi

Fox News Channel's Greta Van Susteren sat down with outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to discuss - among other things - Egypt and Benghazi. Those expecting Greta to be a bit tougher on Clinton than was the stable of gelded Republican Senators and Congressmen last week were disappointed but there were some revealing moments.

Commentary after the video:



After exchanging niceties, Clinton refers to the post-Arab Spring in general - Egypt in particular - as a "period of adjustment" and that it's important "not to see these revolutions hijacked by extremists". What she didn't say was that countries like Egypt are adjusting to Sharia law and that the hijacking of those revolutions is a foregone conclusion and was predictable to so many with much less information than Clinton had at her disposal during the early stages of the Arab Spring.

Shortly thereafter, Greta brings up Morsi's 2010 comments, which included him saying the Jews were descendants of "apes and pigs", and that Egypt must "nurse its children on hatred of the Jews". A few hours before Greta's interview, reports came out that a close Morsi aid said the Holocaust never happened and that the Jews secretly moved to the U.S.

Hillary's response?

At the 1:58 mark, she says "We were quite concerned about those statements" and that "the Egyptian presidency has repudiated" the comments.

What more proof does one need that the Democratic Party has more contempt for Christians and conservatives than for the Muslim Brotherhood? Virtually the entire Barack Obama administration, for more than four years, has been engaged in class warfare that involves much more critical and relentless criticism of conservatives who haven't even come close to talking like Morsi.

At the 3:30 mark, when asked about Morsi personally, Hillary said:

"I think he has a lot of the right intentions".

Wait a minute. A leader of the Muslim Brotherhood who also happens to be the President of Egypt has pure intentions?! The intentions of the Brotherhood include the annihilation of Israel and establishing a global caliphate.

Shortly after the 4:00 mark, while mildly defending Morsi, said:

"It's not what somebody says. It's what they do."

You mean like saying Al-Qaeda has been decimated while actually fueling the group's resurgence by siding with the Muslim Brotherhood all over the Middle East?

At the 4:40 mark, the conversation shift's to Morsi's welcoming of Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir, who is responsible for mass genocide in his country. Clinton doesn't just excuse Morsi for doing so by saying such meetings take place all over the Middle East but check out this quote, delivered by her at about the 5:20 mark:

"He (Bashir) does need to be held accountable for what happened on his watch as President."

Interesting to hear such language coming from Clinton, which makes a nice segue to the question about Benghazi, which is asked shortly after the 12:00 mark. It was a two-part question and just as open-ended as many of the questions asked by Republican Senators and Congressmen at last week's hearings.

1.) Can Americans feel confident that security at embassies and consulates will be sufficient, moving forward?

2.) Should we go back to Benghazi?

Clinton's answer ultimately led to a sales pitch for more money to help keep these installations more secure. Again, like what happened at the Senate and House Committee hearings, that pitch went unanswered by Greta, despite earlier testimony from Charlene Lamb, a State Department bureaucrat, who testified that a lack of funds was not the reason for a lack of security in Benghazi.

In that hearing, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) asked Lamb if lack of security due to budget concerns. Her answer (at about the 1:45 mark) was "no sir":



Breitbart was not too happy with Van Susteren's failure to ask any follow-up questions of Hillary about Benghazi.

Slavery is coming back... to Egypt

During the presidential campaign, Democratic Vice President Joe Biden infamously told an audience that the Republican nominee Mitt Romney wanted, "to put you all back in chains". On the day after the election, ABC News reported that Obama had the support of more than 96% of Black Americans.

The history of slavery in America is always there and will always be there. Unfortunately, it's a grossly distorted view of history that wins the day. That view is that the Republican Party is the party of slavery, Jim Crow laws, the KKK, racism, etc. etc. etc. The reality is just the opposite. All of those things - all of them - can be laid at the feet of the Democratic Party. Yet, despite all of this, blacks overwhelmingly vote Democrat election after election.

As for slavery, Barack Obama's Middle East policy has facilitated the overthrow of Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, who has been replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood's Mohamed Morsi. Now Egypt is voting on a draft of its constitution and, guess what? It looks like slavery is coming back.

Via the AP:

An Islamist-dominated panel is voting on Egypt's draft constitution, the country's first charter after the uprising that toppled Hosni Mubarak. The draft largely reflects the conservative vision of the Islamists, with articles that rights activists, liberals and Christians fear will lead to restrictions on the rights of women and minorities and civil liberties in general.

Omissions of certain articles, such as bans on slavery or promises to adhere to international rights treaties, were equally worrying to critics of the new draft, who pulled out from the panel before the vote.

As the GWP rightly points out, the Obama administration doesn't seem nearly prepared to go after Morsi the way it went after Romney when it comes to the issue of slavery, which neither Romney nor his Party had anything to do with.

Via the AP:

The Obama administration is declining to criticize Egypt's draft constitution despite spirited internal debate over whether the document adequately protects women, religious minorities and dissenting voices.

This time, the Democratic Party, which allegedly fights to prevent slavery from coming back at the hands of the Republican Party (according to Joe Biden), will be complicit - once again - in ushering in an age of slavery. The difference, of course, is that this time it will be slavery in Egypt.

Yet, 96% of blacks support Obama.

The case of Mohamed ElBaradei and be careful what you wish for

As the 'Arab Spring' was dawning in Egypt in early 2011, perhaps one of the most prominent and loudest voices that demanded the ouster of Hosni Mubarak was former Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei. Here is an excerpt of an interview he gave a short time before Mubarak stepped down.

Via Der Spiegel:

SPIEGEL: Shouldn't you be headed down to Tahrir Square to try to use your authority to calm people down there?

ElBaradei: I was there once, and things broke out in turmoil. I need to watch out for my own safety. There are people who think they'd be doing the regime a favor by killing me. The longer things continue on this way with Mubarak, the clearer it becomes that the country is imploding both politically and economically. Mubarak must go; not at some point, but now. I believe the Americans are also getting very impatient.

SPIEGEL: You've given Mubarak an ultimatum. It expired on Friday, which the demonstrators dubbed the "day of departure" ...

ElBaradei: ... and I will say it again: He must go away quickly. I'm sure that some Arab country will take him in. I've heard from Bahrain. If he still has one spark of patriotism, this is his last chance.

As Egypt's newly elected Muslim Brotherhood leader Muhammad Mursi doubles down on dictatorship at breakneck speed, ElBaradei's perception of the implosion of Egypt in early 2011 is nothing compared to what he's seeing now. As for his comment to Der Spiegel that the "Americans are also getting very impatient," his recent comments indicate that he would like to see that impatience continue but, to this point, the White House has been virtually silent over Mursi's most recent power grab.

Via Neil Munroe at the Daily Caller:

Morsi decreed Nov. 22 that his pronouncements and edicts were beyond the reach of judicial review. The announcement was met by resistance from the nation’s top judges, who said they would fight Morsi’s unusual self-elevation to near-dictator status.

“I am waiting to see, I hope soon, a very strong statement of condemnation by the U.S., by Europe and by everybody who really cares about human dignity,” declared Mohamed ElBaradei, who is one of Egypt’s more visible non-Islamist politicians.

This was a very foreseeable problem. Those of us who saw the 'Arab Spring' for what it was had far better vision than the likes of ElBaradei, who is becoming like another in a long line of Arab secularists who never seem to learn that when it comes down to them vs. the Islamists, the Islamists always seem to win.

As for that American (Obama administration) impatience now compared to then, Munroe seemed to sum that up quite succinctly:

There has been no White House response to ElBaradei’s Nov. 24 comments.

To be fair to ElBaradei, he's not the only secularist who was wrong. Just look at practically every Democratic politician in the U.S., a handful of Republicans, and the mainstream media.

It isn't rocket science but liberal secularists still never get it.

Are John McCain's chickens coming home to roost?

When it comes to the Arab Spring, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has been on the wrong side far more often than not. Last year, he referred to the Libyan rebels as his 'heroes'. He continues to support arming the rebels in Syria despite mounting evidence that they make up a contingent that is far worse than Bashar al-Assad.

Earlier this summer, he not only defended Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin when legitimate questions were raised about her background but he smeared the woman who raised those questions - Michele Bachmann - from the Senate floor. Now, he's pointing to State Department culpability in the attack / mishandling of the aftermath in Benghazi.

Last month, during an interview with Sean Hannity, McCain attempted to have an 'I told you so' moment with the Fox News host when he all but stuck his tongue out at Hannity while saying he was right about Libya. He pointed to what he said was the election of a moderate government there.

Now, according to Bill Gertz, al-Qaeda appears to be plotting an overthrow of that government.

Via Washington Free Beacon:

Pakistan-based al Qaeda is secretly setting up sleeper cells and a clandestine network of jihadists to destabilize and take over Libya while hiding under a new cover name to prevent exposure and attacks, according to an internal Pentagon report obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

“Al Qaeda has established a core network in Libya, but it remains clandestine and refrains from using the al Qaeda name,” according to the report produced jointly by the Library of Congress and the Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office’s Irregular Warfare Support Program, a unit under the assistant defense secretary for special operations.

The report concludes that al Qaeda poses “a significant threat to the state-building process in Libya.”

The 54-page unclassified report describes al Qaeda—which President Barack Obama recently declared to be in decline—as “seeking to create an al Qaeda clandestine network in Libya that could be activated in the future to destabilize the government and/or to offer logistical support to al Qaeda’s activities in North Africa and the Sahel”—the Sahara desert region stretching across northern Africa.

Read it all.

Here is the exchange between McCain and Hannity in the days after the attack on Benghazi.

Shoebat: Anti-Muhammad film the result of Muslim Provocateurs?

The Innocence of Muslims film is looking increasingly like the work of some very bad actors, not the work of Coptic Christians. Shoebat has uncovered some very powerful and indisputable facts.

Via Shoebat:

The Innocence of Muslims and the spark of an Islamic revolution can be linked to a handful of culprits. The mystery is unlocked when we review the original YouTube page of one named Sam Bacile (the same name attributed to the filmmaker at one time). Bacile forgot to cover his tracks, leaving two links to three very crucial videos. On the “Feed” tab are two of those videos.

One features a Muslim named Wisam Abdul Waris, uploaded to YouTube on September 9th (linked from the Bacile page no later than September 10th). Wisam’s video was uploaded to Bacile’s page because Bacile commented on the video. Yet, when one attempts to view the comments, all have been scrubbed and the comment feature disabled, though the comment allegedly made by Sam Bacile appears on the “Feed” tab, just above the video.

The second video on the Sam Bacile “Feed” tab is none other Nader Bakkar, from as far back as May of 2012. This video was added to Bacile’s YouTube page as a “Favorite” about one week prior to the embassy attack in Cairo on 9/11.

The third video is on the “Likes” tab of the Sam Bacile YouTube page. It consists of an interview with an English speaking western woman who converted to Islam.

Why would a supposed Christian filmmaker “like” this video?

Who are these two named Wisam Abdul Waris and Nader Bakkar?

Waris and Bakkar, the two main interests on Sam Bacile’s YouTube channel, were the two men we identified back on September 13th as being the two primary culprits behind the Cairo riots on 9/11.

These two have been conspicuously absent, all along, from all western media narratives. For example, days after the attacks in Egypt and Libya, Reuters reported an incomplete narrative that the “flashpoint” of the violence was when Sheikh Khalid Abdallah on Al-Nas TV in Egypt aired portions of the film Innocence of Muslims.

The clip Reuters is referring to (uploaded September 9th) was a TV interview on al-Nas, where Sheikh Khalid Abdallah interviewed an activist named Mohammad Hamdy, who was engaged in a blatant form of guilt by association, creating a link between the Copts in Egypt and the Copts in the Diaspora. He blamed all Copts worldwide, not just the ones involved in the film.

Then came these two on September 9th, Wisam Abdul Waris, a Salafist who announced the formation of a new organization, the Coalition of Dar al-Hekma, an activist group wanting to enforce blasphemy laws worldwide and especially in the West. Nader Bakkar was the head of the Nour Salafist party, who gladly announced his new membership in the coalition on the day these two condemned the film.

Contrary to what Reuters reported, what caused the riots was when Waris called in to Khalid to promote them. Khalid simply asked for the date and accepted the invitation. The details and evidence of how the riots erupted by these two was explained here. The rest is history.

The conclusion is that all evidence reveals a small circle of predators—the filmmaker and two individuals prominently displayed on the Sam Bacile YouTube channel.

Wisam and Bakkar planned and executed the riots.

Read it all. There's a lot more...

Obama Administration and Muslim Brotherhood; why the same narrative about the movie?

In the days after the September 11th attacks of 2012, practically every senior member of the Obama administration insisted that the reason for the riots / attacks could be traced back to a 'disgusting' and 'reprehensible' video that the Muslim world found insulting. As they say, the dam has broken on that narrative.

Via CNS News:

As more senior administration officials use the word “terrorism” in describing the deadly September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya, Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice’s repeated insistence five days later that the incident was a “spontaneous reaction” to an obscure anti-Islam video continues to draw scrutiny and criticism.

Fox News reports that administration officials knew within 24 hours that the Benghazi attack was terrorism.

Since we now know that President Barack Obama Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, and White House spokesman Jay Carney all lied about the crudely produced Innocence of Muslims video being responsible for riots, we deserve to know why.

Charles Krauthammer makes the very credible case that the reason for the deception had to do with the fact that five days prior to 9/11, at the Democratic National Convention, the President's party spiked the football repeatedly on the Obama administration's crowning achievement - the killing of bin Laden.

Consider another reason, whether exclusive or in conjunction with what Krauthammer charges. Does the administration embrace the idea of blaming the video for the same reason the leaders in the Muslim world do - to attack free speech? It's quite clear through a litany of examples that when it comes to the U.S. Constitution, this administration sees it as an obstacle and if there is one thing that is standing in its way, being called out on its lies is definitely front and center.

We already know why the Muslim world is blaming the video. The Muslim Brotherhood president of Egypt, Mohamed Mursi, told us while at the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) this week.

It's about going after Americans' first amendment right of free speech.

So, the Obama administration lied about the video being responsible. By adopting that lie in the first place, it aligned itself with the likes of Mursi and the radical elements of the Muslim world.

Again, why would the Obama administration lie while taking the side of the Muslim Brotherhood in the commission of that lie?

One of the many elephants in the room here is Mursi's connection to the mother of Hillary Clinton's closest adviser, Huma Abedin. Mursi's wife (Najla Mahmoud) and Huma's mother (Saleha Abedin) represent two of the 63 leaders within the Muslim Sisterhood. This is relevant for at least two reasons. First, we know the administration - to include Hillary Clinton herself - lied about the video being responsible for the attacks. Second, it was the same lie being pushed by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Again, in committing this egregious lie, the administration aligned itself with the Brotherhood on yet another issue.

Why, why, why?

Here is Mursi's not so subtle suggestion that Americans should not be allowed to exercise their freedom of speech when it comes to Islam.

Via GWP:

Anti-Muhammad film vs. 'Piss Christ'; Are you choking on the hypocrisy yet?

Barack Obama said Jeremiah Wright converted him to Christianity. Yet, when it comes to the 'Arab Spring' and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood all across the Middle East, it's Christians who are being ignored by this administration. Just contrast the lack of attention in the mainstream media (White House ventriloquist dummy) given to Egypt's Coptic Christians and compare it to the constant sympathy for the Syrian rebels, who resemble the Muslim Brotherhood more each day.

The latest example comes courtesy of the reaction of the Obama / Hillary tandem to the anti-Muhammad film vs. their non-reaction to the news that 'Piss Christ' will be on display in a New York Gallery next week.

First up, here is the video ad that includes both Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in which both decry the anti-Muhammad film. Clinton, once again, goes out of her way to stress that the U.S. Government had "nothing to do" with the making of the film. American taxpayer dollars were used to air this ad throughout Pakistan. The ultimate irony here is that the hypocrisy itself proves what we all know to be true. It's not about the film; it's about the reaction to it. Otherwise, 'Piss Christ' would receive the same treatment.



As for 'Piss Christ', Fox News Radio's Todd Starnes has more:

“Piss Christ,” once branded as a “deplorable, despicable display of vulgarity,” will be displayed at the Edward Tyler Nahem Gallery in Manhattan on Thursday. The artwork features a “photograph of the crucifix submerged in the artist’s urine.”

The artwork debuted in 1989 and was funded through prize money provided by the National Endowment for the Arts. The art gallery hosting the retrospective salute to Andres Serrano is privately owned.

Religious groups and some lawmakers have already started sounding off – and making comparisons to the controversy over a recent anti-Muslim film. The low budget movie “Innocence of Muslims” sparked violent and deadly clashes across the globe.

It also brought strong rebukes, condemnations and apologies from President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a host of administration officials.

The administration tried to have the film removed from YouTube – but Google rebuffed their request. The State Dept. spent $70,000 on a Pakistani television advertisement rebuking the film. And the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff personally telephoned a Christian minister in Florida to ask him to withdraw his support of the film.

Rep. Michael Grimm (R, C-NY) wants to know why President Obama hasn’t denounced the exhibit and said he’s fed up with what he called the administration’s “religious hypocrisy.”

“The Obama administration’s hypocrisy and utter lack of respect for the religious beliefs of Americans has reached an all-time high,” Grimm told Fox News. “I call on President Obama to stand up for America’s values and beliefs and denounce the ‘Piss Christ’ that has offended Christians at home and abroad.”

So will the Obama Administration condemn the anti-Christian art display? Will they air a television ad denouncing the exhibit? Will the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff ask the gallery to cancel the exhibit? 

The White House did not return calls seeking comment. Neither did the Pentagon.

Does that mean that Serrano won't be receiving a phone call from Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, General Martin Dempsey?

So taxpayer dollars were both used to decry an anti-Muslim film and subsidize an anti-Christian piece of art.

Obama on man behind anti-Muhammad film: 'Shadowy character'

First Amendment champions were taken aback when they saw the producer of that anti-Muhammad film - Nakoula Basseley Nakoula - being taken in for questioning by police. Most came to his defense. In recent days, however, questions have arisen about his conviction on charges related to bank fraud. It may be time to do a little digging on this guy.

He is likely not what he seems.

Besides, Barack Obama says he's 'shadowy'.

Via the AP:

President Barack Obama says the man behind an anti-Islam movie that ignited violence across the Middle East is a "shadowy character."

U.S. officials blame the film in part for the violence in Libya, where U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed. The White House says the matter still is under investigation and that assessment could change.

If Nakoula is so 'shadowy', perhaps we should learn more about him.

h/t WZ

Is there a Huma Abedin connection to Hillary Clinton's celebration of Muslim Holiday two days after 9/11?

There were two people introduced by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton inside the Ben Franklin room at a Muslim Eid dinner on September 13th, two days after Muslims attacked two U.S. Embassies and killed four Americans. One of the two people Hillary celebrated Eid with was Libya's Ambassador to the U.S., Ali Sulaiman Aujali.

The other was an individual who is the focus of this post - Farah Pandith. Clinton introduced Pandith at the 9/13/12 Eid dinner at around the 15:00 mark of this video.

On September 15, 2009 Pandith was sworn in as the U.S. Representative to Muslim Communities in a ceremony over which Clinton presided. Pay close attention to a couple of things. One, take note of the portrait of Thomas Jefferson behind the podium. Two, pay attention starting at the 8:15 mark as Hillary announces that Pandith will be getting sworn in with one hand on the Qur'an:

HERE IS A LINK TO THE VIDEO.

Before swearing Pandith in, Clinton seemed fixated on creating and establishing dialogue with Muslims all across the world that would focus on "what all of us have in common". Three years earlier, in 2006, Pandith seemed to demonstrate that she had some things "in common" with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Via GMBDR:

Ms. Pandith was one of the organizers of a March 2006 conference in Belgium called “Muslim Communities Participating in Society: A Belgian-U.S. Dialogue.” The conference brought together the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood with its Belgian/European counterparts and the participating American organizations included all of the major U.S. Brotherhood organizations- the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), and the Muslim Students Association of the US and Canada (MSA).

Hours after Pandith's swearing in, she spoke at the White House iftar dinner on 9/15/09. Below is video of her speech. At about the 3:00 mark, Pandith makes reference to Huma Abedin while explaining that this particular iftar dinner was the 13th "shared" by both Abedin and Hillary. She later pointed to Hillary Clinton as being responsible for breaking new ground by beginning iftar / Eid celebrations starting in 1999. Hillary later corrected Pandith, saying the practice started in 1996, the same year that Huma Abedin began working with Clinton:



Within the next year, Pandith would meet with some individuals who should have raised some red flags. For example, on October 31, 2009 Pandith was in Saudi Arabia, where she met with the mother of Huma Abedin - Saleha Abedin - at Dar el-Hekma college, where Saleha served as a vice dean after having helped found the college.

Here is a photo of Pandith with Saleha, one of 63 leaders in the Muslim Sisterhood and close friend of Egypt's first lady Najla Mahmoud, on 10/31/09:



A few months later, Hillary and Huma would visit Dar el-Hekma as well.

Shortly after Hillary's visit with Saleha in Saudi Arabia, Pandith, by her own admission, traveled to the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies (OCIS) where she met with OCIS "Fellows" according to her own twitter feed:


Via the GMBDR:

The Oxford Centere has numerous ties to Saudi Arabia and the global Muslim Brotherhood. For example, the chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Oxford Centre is Abdullah Omar Naseef who has held important positions in Saudi Arabia including serving as Vice-President of the Kingdom’s Shura Council, President of King Abdul Aziz University, and was Secretary-General of the Muslim World League (MWL) from 1983-1993. In addition to his role as Oxford Centre Board Chairman, Dr. Naseef has also been associated with other UK Islamist organizations including the Islamic Foundation and the Markfield Institute for Advanced Studies.

Of course, one of the individuals who was a Fellow at OCIS at the time was the brother of Huma Abedin - Hassan Abedin. Moreover, the Chairman of the Board was Abdullah Omar Naseef, the same man who founded the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA). IMMA still lists Hassan and Saleha as members of the Editorial Board.

Last month, at the White House iftar dinner, President Barack Obama singled out Huma Abedin so that he could defend her against questions about her background. Also present at the iftar dinner was Farah Pandith, who posted this photo of herself with Huma and and Zeenat Rahman on her facebook page.

She referred to Huma as her "colleague" (Huma on far left, Pandith on far right):



Based on what we know about Huma Abedin's familial ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, coupled with what we know about Farah Pandith's willingness to both refer to her as a "colleague" and visit with "Fellows" of the OCIS, which included Naseef, Huma's brother, and the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood - Yusuf al-Qaradawi - at the time, a look into Pandith's background (Form 86) might be in order as well.

Did I mention she was sworn while placing one hand on the Qur'an?

Two Suspects identified in U.S. Embassy attack in Cairo

At act of war was committed against the United States in Cairo on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Now it's being learned that one of two people who could be most responsible is scheduled to visit the United States on September 15th for a business trip. This would be like inviting KSM into the United States after 9/11.

The names of the two men identified by Arabic sources discovered by Walid Shoebat are Wisam Abdul Waris and Nader Bakkar. The reason behind the attack seems to be quite simple - and very Alinsky-esque. The riots were intended to create a crisis that was allegedly caused by an anti-Muslim film, whereby an agenda could be pushed that would criminalize (internationally) attacks on Islam.

Via Shoebat:

The attacks on U.S. Embassies had very little to do with the latest film and much more to do with the old story of the Muhammad Cartoon and the failure of Muslims to prosecute internationally the culprits who drew the Muhammad cartoons. This will be another attempt to change the laws globally.

Wisam Abdul Waris of Dar Al-Hekma (House of Wisdom) – about whom the Nour Salafist party announced publicly that its call to demonstrate was in support of – began a call to push for the passage of laws to be placed in the Egyptian Constitution – as well as internationally – that would make it illegal to criticize Islam.

In an interview posted to YouTube on September 9th, Wisam said the following (translation by Shoebat):

We have moved to review... all the legal procedures today by which we created The Voice of Wisdom Coalition (I’itilaf Sawt al-Hekma); it will hold accountable everyone who insults Islam locally and internationally, in accordance with every country’s laws. We all know the problems Yasser Al-Habib had in London and after that in Berlin… in Germany, an extremist group was allowed to publicize cartoons that insult the prophet in front of the Salafist Mosque in Berlin, through a legal decision. So what we did was to ask Sharabi Mahmoud to reject this legal decision on behalf of the Egyptian people who are Muslim; for this reason, we created this coalition. We also made an official request from the Church in Egypt to issue a public announcement, to state it has nothing to do with this deed.

This is where Nader Bakkar comes in. As a prominent member of the Nour Party, he echoed Wisam's sentiment and the official facebook page of the Nour Party posted the following:

Salafi Nour Party officially joined the Commonwealth of ‘voice of wisdom’ with Wisam Abdul Waris, as well as with Nader Bakkar, the party’s official spokesman and Dr. Ahmed Khalil Khairallah, member of the supreme body.

Said Bakkar:

"Ahmed Khalil, of the supreme body, and I joined the Association of the voice of wisdom with Dr. Wisam Abdul Waris as official representatives from Nour Party and the Salafist call."

On his personal facebook page, Bakkar said the following:

"…after the movie that abused the Prophet (peace be upon him), none will dare object to our determination to put an article in the constitution that criminalizes insults of the divine through portrayal or animation of the prophet, His companions, and all His House and mothers of the believers… this is the least we can do."

It's important to understand that this entire episode smacks of Middle Eastern-style Community Organizing. Ratcheting up the 'never let a crisis go to waste' mantra involves CREATING a crisis that you don't let go to waste. In this case, mobs of Muslims riot while pointing to a film as the source of their rage. Meanwhile, characters like Wisam and Bakkar can help push an agenda that involves criminalizing criticism of Islam.

Saul Alinksy's Rules for Radicals comes in quite handy at this point. In particular, check out Rule #8.

Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”

So if criminalizing criticism of Islam is on the international agenda of the Muslim world, where is it on the Obama administration's agenda? This video from July of this year should answer that question quite simply. It is an exchange between Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), - one of the five courageous Congressmen who are asking legitimate questions about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the U.S. Government - and Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division:

Video: Gunmen in Libya say, 'Don't Shoot us! We were sent by Mursi!'

The first 1:30 of this video is of no use if you don't speak Arabic. However, once it changes to the raw footage of a fire fight in Benghazi, it becomes very interesting very quickly. Listen carefully - the news report loops the portion of the video - as one gunman can be heard shouting the name 'Mursi' (Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood president).

The full translation according to Shoebat is basically a plea to prevent friendly fire.

'Don't Shoot us! We were sent by Mursi'



This doesn't just point to the attacks on U.S. Embassies in Egypt and Libya being jointly coordinated; it would seem to point to the President of Egypt, who happens to be of the Muslim Brotherhood, as being involved in both attacks.

Video: The Movie that caused Muslims to storm Embassies and Kill Americans

Egyptian Muslims stormed the U.S. Embassy on the anniversary of 9/11 and replaced the American flag with an al-Qaeda flag. In Benghazi, Libya they killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and dragged his body through the street.

This is the video that the Muslims say was responsible.



Sorry, a video does not warrant an act of war on a day as solemn as 9/11.

Egypt's Mohamed Mursi and John McCain allies together Syria

Senator John McCain (RINO-AZ) used his speech at the Republican convention to give voice to a common refrain of his - that the United States should arm the Syrian rebels against Bashar al-Assad (video at bottom of this post). Almost simultaneously, Muslim Brotherhood leader / President of Egypt Mohamad Mursi was calling for the end of Assad's 'oppressive' regime. Mursi likely nodded and applauded when McCain expressed his views on Syria.

Via Reuters:

Egypt called on Thursday for intervention to halt bloodshed in Syria, telling a meeting of 120 nations it was their duty to stand against the "oppressive regime" of Bashar al-Assad, prompting a Syrian walkout.

President Mohamed Mursi, elected two months ago after a popular uprising toppled Egypt's long-standing leader Hosni Mubarak, said Assad had lost legitimacy in his fight to crush a 17-month-old revolt in which 20,000 people have been killed.

Mursi's scathing speech to a summit of non-aligned leaders, hosted by Assad's Shi'ite ally Iran, prompted Syria's foreign minister to accuse the moderate Sunni Islamist leader of inciting further bloodshed in Syria.

The political broadside against the Syrian president came as rebels said they shot down a fighter plane in northern Syria, where his air force has been bombarding opposition-held towns in a fierce counter-offensive against insurgents.

Has anyone been able to figure out why the likes of McCain are seemingly so passionately sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood's cause in Syria?

Let's back up a bit. Who is Mursi's wife? The answer is Najla Ali Mahmoud; she is one of 63 leaders of the Muslim Sisterhood and serves alongside the mother of a woman McCain vehemently defended on the Senate floor last month when questions were raised by Rep. Michele Bachmann about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the U.S. Government. The name of the woman McCain defended while smearing Bachmann is Huma Abedin, Secretary of State Hillary's Clinton's closest advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff.

Saleha Abedin is another one of those 63 leaders and is a close colleague of Mahmoud in that regard. Saleha Abedin is Huma's mother. The effusive and near blind praise McCain heaped upon Saleha's daughter was almost surreal. He admitted to being taken by her charm. Has he also taken up the cause of her mother as a result of that charm?

Here is an excerpt from McCain's floor speech last month, during which he adamantly defended Huma:

“Huma Abedin represents what is best about America,” said McCain. “The daughter of immigrants who has risen to the highest levels of our government on the basis of her substantial personal merit and her abiding commitment to the American ideals that she embodies.”

“I am proud to know her,” McCain continued. “And I am proud – even with some personal presumption – to call her my friend.”

These are precisely the reasons why the details behind Huma Abedin being granted a security clearance must be understood and why charges of 'guilt by association' are unwarranted when denying security clearances because of those associations. Huma hasn't denounced her mother nor the Muslim Brotherhood. Therefore, she is in a position where she could have a conflict of interest. If she were sympathetic to the Brotherhood's cause (which is the cause of her mother), would she not attempt to influence a U.S. Senator who already thinks highly of her?

By the way, Saleha must have been pleased with this part of the speech too:



Perhaps if Mr. McCain were as taken with a Coptic Christian woman as he apparently is with Huma Abedin, he would care more about real persecution in Egypt (right now under Mursi) instead of wanting to arm vicious Muslim Brotherhood rebels in Syria.



Here is another video that shows Coptic persecution in Egypt:

Egypt's new Muslim Brotherhood President to walk on Obama's Red Carpet?

Seemingly never hesitant to roll out the red carpet for terrorists, anti-Semites, and 9/11 Truthers, the Barack Obama administration has reportedly invited new Egyptian president Mohammed Mursi - who fits the bill for all three - to the United States in September.

Via Reuters:

President Barack Obama has invited Egypt's newly elected Islamist president, Mohamed Mursi, to visit the United States in September, an Egyptian official said on Sunday, reflecting the new ties Washington is cultivating with the region's Islamists.

Washington, long wary of Islamists and an ally of ousted President Hosni Mubarak, shifted policy last year to open formal contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood, the group behind Mursi's win. Mursi formally resigned from the group after his victory.

Mursi formally resigned?

After Mubarak's fall, the Brotherhood pledged not to field a presidential candidate at all. Abdel Moneim Abul Futuh was allegedly expelled from the group and ran as a non-member. Then the Brotherhood went back on its word entirely and fielded candidate Khairat al-Shater. After he was ruled ineligible (for being arrested too many times), in stepped another Brotherhood candidate (Mursi).

So, Mursi wins and then "formally" resigns from the group?!

Whatever.

Think Progress goes after Limbaugh over his comments on Hillary and Huma Abedin

On June 26th, Rush Limbaugh spent a couple of minutes reporting on the story we broke on June 24th, that further exposes the familial ties of Huma Abedin - Hillary Clinton's closest advisor - to the Muslim Brotherhood. Specifically, the point of interest for Rush is the news that Huma's mother and Egypt's new first lady are close colleagues as leaders of the Muslim Sisterhood. The Soros-backed Think Progress attempted to debunk Limbaugh's claims and linked to an article we wrote last year, labeling it one of those conservative "conspiracy theories".

Keep checking Shoebat.com because we have an explosive follow-up piece to this story coming that you will not want to miss.

Here is the relevant audio clip of Limbaugh from June 26th, via Think Progress:

How is Huma Abedin connected to Egypt's new President-Elect?

Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack

It was encouraging to see five sitting US Congressmen – led by Rep. Michele Bachmann – send a letter to the Office of the Inspector General at the State Department recently; it made reference to the familial relationships Huma Abedin – Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff and closest advisor – has to the Muslim Brotherhood. Abedin has much fewer than six degrees of separation (1 or 2 depending on your interpretation) from Egypt's newly elected Muslim Brotherhood president – Mohammed Mursi.

One year ago, when Walid discovered the names of 63 leaders who make up the Muslim Sisterhood – which is essentially nothing more than the female version of the Brotherhood – we learned that Huma's mother, Saleha, was one of those leaders. Little attention has been paid to the other 62 leaders, however. One of them is Najla Ali Mahmoud, the wife of Mursi. Both are members of the Guidance Bureau, which proves fallacious, the claim that Najla is just an innocent and naïve spouse.

This would make Huma's mother a close, personal colleague of the wife of a virulently anti-Semitic racist who has officially been declared the first president-elect of post-Mubarak Egypt. Mursi also sat behind a Muslim cleric at a presidential campaign rally before the first round of elections, nodding in approval as the cleric enthusiastically informed the crowd that under Mursi, Jerusalem would become the new capital of the next Caliphate.



Abedin has the ability to leak highly sensitive state secrets; she is closely associated with her Muslim Brotherhood family; she even joined Clinton at an event with Saleha at Dar El-Hekma College in Saudi Arabia and another leader who appeared on the list of 63 as an associate of Saleha Abedin—Suheir Qureshi. Huma's brother—Hassan Abedin—has also collaborated with an al-Qaeda godfather Omar Naseef and Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, two of the most influential terror supporters in the world.

All signs point to Huma using a technique championed by Qaradawi himself. It's called Muruna and it allows Muslims to go to extreme lengths to deceive and convince non-Muslims they pose no threat. One such act permitted by Muruna would be for a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim man if it furthered the cause of Islam.

Consider, Huma Abedin is also the wife of former US Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY), who happens to be Jewish. Why hasn't Huma denounced her mother or the views espoused by the Sisterhood? In fact, as the twitter sex scandal involving Weiner was playing out last year, the New York Post reported that the former Congressman allegedly claimed that there were three women he needed to reconcile with – Huma, Hillary, and Saleha. Perhaps the biggest red flag of all is why Huma – a practicing Muslim – wasn't disowned by her family for marrying a Jew in the first place.

When it was learned that Saleha was a member of this extremely nefarious group, Walid was able to uncover mountains of evidence from news sources – in Arabic – that implicated Huma's mother as being part of a plot reminiscent of Hitler's Nazi Germany. Today, much of these connections have vanished. Short of identifying Saleha as the Dean of Dar el Hekma, her tracks have been all but covered.

If she and Huma aren't stealth collaborators, why is this so?

Walid Shoebat is the author For God or For Tyranny
Ben Barrack is a talk show host and author of the upcoming book, Unsung Davids

Obama position on Honduras in 2009 and on Egypt 2012 quite similar

Barack Obama wants the virulently anti-Semitic and very dangerous Muslim Brotherhood in charge of Egypt. In 2009, he wanted Manuel Zelaya, a Hugo Chavez stooge, to be reinstated as president of Honduras after Zelaya was constitutionally removed from office and replaced by a man named Roberto Micheletti. At one point, it was reported that Israel and the Mubarak- led Egypt were two of only four countries that supported Micheletti.

Today, Mubarak is gone, and two entities are fighting for power in Egypt - holdover forces from the Mubarak regime and the Muslim Brotherhood; Obama is openly siding with the Brotherhood.

Via Los Angeles Times:

U.S. officials said Monday that they were "deeply concerned" by an Egyptian military decree giving its ruling generals sweeping powers to pass laws and decide whether to go to war, issued just as Egyptians finished casting their votes for its new president.

“We have, and will continue, to urge the [Supreme Council of the Armed Forces] to relinquish power to civilian-elected authorities and to respect the universal rights of the Egyptian people and the rule of law,” Pentagon Press Secretary George Little told reporters.

And of course, let's not forget the quotes from the woman who refused to acknowledge that Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel, State Department spokesman, Victoria Nuland:

"This is a critical moment in Egypt, and the world is watching closely," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland was quoted as saying by the Associated Press on Monday. "We are particularly concerned by decisions that appear to prolong the military's hold on power."

Chavez is anti-Semitic; so was Manuel Zelaya. It was reported that Zelaya's Chief Propagandist endorsed Hitler and the Holocaust. At one point, while holed up in the Brazilian embassy, Zelaya had delusions of persecution about Jews poisoning him with radiation beams. That's the guy the Obama administration supported in 2009.

Meanwhile, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is frothing at the mouth to attack Israel. the Military, though not in love with Israel, is certainly more rational. It wants the Brotherhood on a leash. Clearly, Obama does not.

It was this same Los Angeles Times that refused to release a tape of Obama at a Party for another virulent anti-Semite - Rashid Khalidi - in 2008, before the election.

Khalidi worked for the media arm of Yasser Arafat's PLO and even dedicated his book to Arafat in 1982.

h/t FPM

CBS Finally reports on Christian Persecution in Egypt

As Lebanon opened its country to Islam, Christians were persecuted. When Hamas was elected to power in Gaza, Christians were persecuted. When Saddam was overthrown in Iraq, Christians suffered. As the Syrian rebels al-Qaeda and Hamas fights against Bashar al-Assad, they are persecuting Christians. When Mubarak was overthrown in Egypt, the Christians began to suffer. Many of us knew this would happen. Yet, the liberal media that championed the 'Arab Spring' was disinterested. It was journalistic malpractice that should have torpedoed their credibility with the masses.

Instead, they embarrassingly continue to hold a large media megaphone and now, well over a year after Egypt fell, CBS actually discovers Christian persecution in Egypt.

Via NewsBusters:

Sunday's CBS Evening News refreshingly spotlighted the continuing persecution of the Coptic Christians in Egypt, an ongoing story that the Big Three networks have largely ignored for months. Correspondent Elizabeth Palmer zeroed in on the uncertain future for the religious minority as the country gears for a rare election: "[Egypt's] Christians are deeply worried....Two of the frontrunners in the race with a realistic chance of winning are deeply devout Islamists."

The last time CBS reported on the anti-Christian violence in Egypt was a news brief on the October 9, 2011 edition of Evening News, according to a Nexis search. Since January 2011, ABC, NBC, and CBS's morning and evening newscasts have only mentioned the issue six times.

Anchor Jeff Glor introduced Palmer's report by noting that "Egyptians vote this week in the first free presidential election in six decades. There are thirteen candidates running from all over the political spectrum. But Elizabeth Palmer reports tonight Egypt's largest minority fears their situation may go from bad to worse."

The correspondent began with footage of a Christian worship service in Cairo, stating that "the Coptic Christian ritual is ancient and familiar. But outside the door, Egypt now feels unwelcoming and unsafe. Last May, a Coptic church was set on fire in Cairo. Locals blamed Muslims in the neighborhood. And then, in October, Christians protesting the destruction of another church were mowed down by military vehicles."

Suddenly, the mainstream media - the supposed beacon of news and information - has discovered something it should have discovered a year and a half ago.



CBS didn't even wake up after one of its own female reporters - Lara Logan - suffered an extremely violent sexual assault at the hands of a mob of celebratory Islamists who shouted, "Jew! Jew! Jew!"

What the liberal western media isn't doing is criminal.