Audio: Today's Podcast

On today's show...

* Why do conservative politicians partner with registered socialists?
* Upcoming Benghazi hearings (Hillary's spokesman implicated in coverup?)
* Why is there not more contrasting of Fast and Furious with Sandy Hook at NRA Convention?
* Update on Saudi prisoner in Colorado (renewed interest)?

The Increasingly Bizarre case of Evan Ebel and the murders of State officials

On March 21st, two days after Tom Clements - the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Corrections - was murdered at his home in Monument, Colorado, a high speed car chase in Decatur, TX ended with the death of Evan Ebel, a parolee whom many view as the prime suspect in Clements' murder. Decatur is almost 700 miles from Monument.

Before Ebel's run-in with Texas law enforcement, the description of a car that sat outside Clements' home was relayed by at least one witness (possibly two), to authorities.

Via the Daily Mail:

Colorado authorities are looking for a dark-colored ‘boxy,’ dark-colored, two-door 1990s-model car with green dashboard light seen idling for 15 minutes near Clements' house around the time of the shooting. The vehicle's engine was running and a witness reported seeing one person driving away in the car.

Here is Lt. Jeff Kramer on or about March 19th, giving a description of the vehicle of interest. Take note of how matter-of-factly Kramer states that the vehicle is a "two-door" vehicle.



Fast forward to March 21st, the day that Ebel met his end in Decatur, TX. The car he was driving can be described as "dark-colored" and "boxy" but it was definitely not a "two-door" vehicle. It was absolutely a four-door vehicle (see photo).

On a March 20th news report from NBC News 9 in Denver, the description again, is a two-door vehicle, witnessed by a female speed-walker (take note at the 2:30 mark):

**UPDATE** The description of the car being a two-door vehicle was made prior to this speed-walker being identified (as the NBC 9 report indicates). There are also no news stories I can find that identify the "speed-walker" as having been contacted prior to Ebel's death. In fact, in this March 21st report posted after Ebel's death, the "speed-walker" doesn't appear to have been identified at all. The question becomes: How many witnesses had identified the vehicle outside Clements' home as being "two-door"?

Clements' murder (and Ebel's death) took place after the murder of Kaufman County Assistant District Attorney Mark Hasse and before the murder of Kaufman County D.A. Mike McLelland, who - like Clements - was murdered in his own home, along with his wife Cynthia. Hasse was gunned down on Kaufman County courthouse steps in broad daylight on January 31st. Though Clements and the McLellands were murdered in similar fashion, Ebel met his end nine days before the McLellands were murdered, despite being roughly 100 miles away in Decatur, TX.

Conversely, this distance from where Clements was shot and Decatur, TX is nearly 800 miles.

As for Ebel's "dark-colored", "boxy" four-door vehicle, is it possible that he switched cars and that the two-door car was ditched? Based on his actions prior to meeting his own demise - coupled with what he didn't ditch, the answer to that question is: not likely.

Consider the evidence allegedly found in Ebel's vehicle. On Sunday, March 17th, two days prior to Clements' murder, a Domino's Pizza delivery man named Nathan Leon was murdered near Denver. Based on what was found in Ebel's trunk, evidence implicated him in Leon's murder as well.

Via ABC 7 in Denver:

...Bradford (Texas Ranger) wrote that the Cadillac also contained evidence that could be linked to the Denver police investigation of the Sunday slaying of Nathan Leon, a Denver Domino’s Pizza delivery man.

In the Cadillac’s open trunk, investigators saw an insulated Domino’s Pizza carrier and a Domino’s shirt or jacket, the affidavit said.

Think about this for a minute. If Ebel murdered Leon two days prior to murdering the top guy for Colorado's Department of Corrections at his home, why would Ebel leave evidence of the first murder in the car he was driving when he murdered Clements? We are talking about an experienced criminal here. It doesn't make sense.

That wasn't the only evidence found in the vehicle that seemed to implicate Ebel.

Via CBS News:

The El Paso County sheriff's office said that "unique and often microscopic markings" found on shell casings in Texas and Colorado leads investigators to conclude that the gun Evan Ebel used to shoot at authorities in Texas was the same gun used to kill Tom Clements at his home on Tuesday.

It had been known that the casings found at both scenes were of the same caliber and brand but Monday's announcement was the first time Colorado investigators made a direct link between Ebel and Clements' death.

It would seem we're dealing with an incredibly stupid criminal here. Think about this possible chain of events:

1. On Sunday, March 17th, Ebel murders a pizza delivery guy and puts the delivery box carrier and a shirt belonging to that guy, in his trunk.
2. Two days later, on March 19th, with murder evidence still in his trunk, Ebel drives to the home of Tom Clements and murders him, while keeping the murder weapon.
3. Two days after that, on March 21st, Ebel is in a high speed chase with police in Decatur, during which he shoots at them with the same gun he used to murder Clements, while also having evidence in his trunk that implicates him in the murder of a pizza delivery guy four days earlier.

This is the behavior of a murderer who had no interest in covering his tracks.

Let's take a look at some of the circumstances that allowed Ebel to be in a position to commit these murders in the first place.

1. Ebel was released from prison four years too early, on January 28th (incidentally, three days prior to Hasse's murder in Kaufman, TX) as a result of a clerical error.
2. On March 14th, three days before the murder of Leon, Ebel removed his ankle bracelet. Despite his being on "intensive supervised parole", authorities didn't take much interest in Ebel until the day of Clements' murder. In fact, a warrant wasn't issued for Ebel's arrest until the day after Clements was murdered.

Again, Ebel had to have known he was living on borrowed time when he allegedly murdered both Leon and Clements. Why would he seemingly want to implicate himself in those murders? It's as if he wanted to be caught and charged for committing them.

Who does that?

Ok, let's consider a narrative that would be incredibly beneficial to the Obama administration vs. one that would not. It's no secret that this administration has been waging class and race warfare ever since 2009; it thrives on such things. Identifying these murders as the actions of a white supremacist group like the Aryan Brotherhood of Texas would certainly be more preferable than pushing the notion that the killings were the work of say, Mexican drug cartels.

With so much evidence implicating Ebel, such a narrative is easier to push, is it not? While he's still the "alleged" murderer of Clements and Leon, the evidence that does exist appears to be so overwhelming that it's not far from being as obvious that Nidal Malik Hasan is the Fort Hood shooter.

The Obama administration would absolutely not want a narrative to take hold or evidence to come forth that Mexican drug cartels are behind these murders, primarily for two reasons:

1. The Immigration debate / border security - In 2011, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano insisted that the border with Mexico is "safer than it's ever been" while the Democratic Party and the administration she works for has stonewalled every attempt to enhance border security. If it turns out that Mexican drug cartels are murdering U.S. prosecutors, Obama, et. al. might finally have a lot of 'splaining to do.
2. Operation Fast and Furious - This operation was specifically designed to place high powered weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. Two of those weapons were found at the murder scene of Border Agent Brian Terry in 2010 in Peck Canyon, AZ. Hundreds of Mexicans have been murdered at the hands of those weapons as well. It'd be bad enough for the administration if Americans learned of cartel savagery firsthand; the former could start connecting real dots relative to what the ATF did when it gave these weapons to cartels. It'd be far more disastrous for Obama if any of the weapons used in the murder of Americans on American soil turn out to be Fast and Furious guns.

Brandon Darby over at Breitbart has a very interesting find relative to the Aryan Brotherhood and its willingness to work with the Mexican cartels. In his piece, Darby quotes from declassified FBI documents, which indicate that the AB is more interested in drug trafficking than it is in race and that it seems to act in concert with cartels:

The purpose of the AB is now power and is not a racial organization as it has been deemed in the past. The AB’s continue to be aligned with members of the Mexican Mafia (EME) and certain motorcycle type inmates.

Let's revisit a bit of news that was making the rounds after Clements was murdered and before Ebel's death. It had been reported that one week prior to Clements was killed, he vetoed a request from a Saudi prisoner convicted in 2006 for the enslavement and repeated sexual assault of an Indonesian woman. Homaidan Al-Turki's request was that he finish serving his sentence in Saudi Arabia. In layman's terms, he wanted to be released.

In a letter to Al-Turki dated March 11th, three days before Ebel ditched his ankle bracelet, Clements informed the Saudi prisoner that his request for release to Saudi Arabia had been denied.

It should be lost on no one that some extremely powerful Saudis want to see Al-Turki freed.

Ebel becoming the most obvious suspect in the murder of Clements did two things. One, it prevented speculation about a major international showdown / scandal between the U.S and Saudi Arabia. Authorities began "de-prioritizing" an Al-Turki connection when the evidence against Ebel became so strong. Two, it enabled a narrative to take hold that a white supremacist group was likely behind the murder of a high-ranking Colorado prison official.

Extrapolating Ebel's alleged actions as a member of the Aryan Brotherhood to the murders in Kaufman, TX of District Attorneys (the McLellans were murdered after Ebel's death) helps to further the narrative that a racist group was behind all of the murders.

Certainly, we can all agree that if given the option of a Saudi hit man, Mexican drug cartels, or a white supremacist movement being implicated in the murders of state officials in Texas and Colorado, the Obama administration would certainly prefer the third option.

Go figure. That's the one being pushed by the mainstream Obama media.

Another look at John Brennan's Q&A at that 2010 NYU Speech

"I'd like to think that everybody is born into this world with a certain amount of innocence to them and unfortunately, sometimes as they go through life, forces of evil will bring them down a certain path." - John Brennan, February 13, 2010.

In light of John Brennan's nomination to be Barack Obama's CIA Director, coupled with a charge that he secretly converted to Islam, renewed attention has been brought to a speech he gave at New York University (NYU) on February 13, 2010 and deservedly so. But how about the lengthier Q and A that took place afterward?

If, as former FBI Agent John Guandolo alleges via access to firsthand accounts, that John Brennan converted to Islam while in Saudi Arabia and is now working against the interests of his own country, the aforementioned statement - made by Brennan during the Q and A session of his New York University speech - is a case study in projection.

The claim that Barack Obama's nominee for CIA Director converted to Islam while in Saudi Arabia notwithstanding, it is important that his record be vetted. We know the "adversarial press" would rather be adversarial toward those of us who want that vetting to happen, which means the job necessarily falls to citizen journalists.

The video of the Q and A is at the bottom of this post but here are some especially telling moments...

2:57 - The second questioner identifies himself as Omar Shahin, Public Relations Director for Islamic Relief and the chairman of the North American Imam's Federation. This was the same Omar Shahin who was one of the six imams in the "flying imams" case in Minneapolis back in 2006. He was the spokesman for the group. During that incident, a concerned passenger handed a note to a flight attendant after observing suspicious behavior. Based on Shahin's associations, that passenger was rightly concerned. CAIR quickly came to Shahin's defense.

In fact, some might remember that the incident took place two weeks after the 2006 midterm elections, during which it became apparent that the very Muslim-friendly Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) would become the chairman of the House Judiciary. Suspicions were raised that the entire incident was to make profiling a top issue during Conyers' tenure as chairman.

Here is a short interview excerpt from 12/1/06 between CNBC's Larry Kudlow and IPT's Steve Emerson during which Shahin's involvement in what was likely a staged publicity event, was discussed:



As for the concerns about Shahin, they are well-founded. Check out what Discover the Networks has reported about him:

The President of North American Imams Federation (NAIF) is Omar Shahin. Before NAIF’s founding in 2004, Shahin was the imam and President of the Islamic Center of Tucson (ICT), a mosque that represented one of Al-Qaeda’s main hubs in America, prior to the ‘93 attack.  One of Shahin’s predecessors at the mosque was Wael Hamza Julaidan, a former colleague of Osama bin Laden and bin Laden’s mentor, Abdullah Azzam.  Shahin, himself, has admitted to once supporting bin Laden.

Throughout his time with and after leaving ICT, Shahin was involved in terror financing organizations.  He was the Arizona Coordinator for the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), and was a representative for KindHearts, two charities shut down by the US government because of their links to Hamas.

Wael Hamza Julaidan was the head of Rabita Trust, the same Rabita Trust that was founded by Abdullah Omar Naseef. That would be the same Abdullah Omar Naseef who founded the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA). That would be the same IMMA where Huma Abedin worked for more than a decade. Julaidan is widely recognized as an al-Qaeda founder - and he was Shahin's predecessor at a mosque in Tucson.

That's not all. How about Shahin's work with Islamic Relief? Islamic Relief USA (IRUSA), the group for which Shahin identified himself as Directing Public Relations is a division of Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW), which has provided direct support to Hamas.

Shahin is tied to an al-Qaeda founder; he worked for the Holy Land Foundation, which was found guilty of financing terrorists; he heads a Muslim Brotherhood group - NAIF; and he works for Islamic Relief, which supported Hamas

In short, why on earth was Shahin given access to John Brennan's speech? The man is connected to the Muslim Brotherhood at nearly every turn and through multiple organizations.

How about a couple of the others in attendance? Sitting right up front - on the left hand side of your screen, sits Ingrid Mattson. She was the President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a Muslim Brotherhood front-group, until Mohamed Magid took over in 2011. Mattson wasn't only in attendance; she introduced Brennan that day and said that it was Brennan himself who "requested to meet with us." Brennan requested to meet with them? Can you imagine Brennan feeling this comfortable in a meeting with conservative groups concerned about his coziness with individuals with irrefutable ties to the Muslim Brotherhood?

Yeah, me neither.

Another individual present during Brennan's speech is Salam Al-Marayati, who is seated in the front row, directly in front of Brennan. On the day of the 9/11/01 attacks, al-Marayati appeared on a Los Angeles radio station and said that Israel should be placed on the suspect list relative to the attacks and refuses to call Hezbollah a terrorist group. IPT reported that Al-Marayati said the U.S. Government "betrayed us" when it refused to unfreeze the assets of the Holy Land Foundation. Four years later, HLF was found guilty on more than 100 counts of financing terrorism.

Remember, the claim by Guandolo was that Brennan was turned by the Muslim Brotherhood and made to convert to Islam. If that's true, would the people in attendance - coupled with Brennan's high comfort level there - not lend a bit more credence to the claim? On top of that, we have the new book that alleges Brennan was involved in shipping weapons from Libya to the Syrian rebels via Turkey while then CIA Director David Petraeus and Christopher Stevens were kept in the dark. Again, support for the Syrian rebels is support for the Muslim Brotherhood.

Who allegedly 'turned' Brennan again?

Here are some of the noteworthy moments in the video of the Q and A with Brennan found in the video at the bottom of this post...

5:45 - "I was very concerned after the attack in Fort Hood as well as the December 25th attack, that all of a sudden there were people who went back into this fearful position, that lashed out, not thinking through what was reasonable and appropriate."

Gee, It's been well over three years since that attack and Nidal Malik Hasan has waged jihad successfully from his prison cell while still not being convicted despite countless witnesses who saw him murder 14 and injure 32 as he shouted 'Allahu Akbar'. That sounds like a case for Islamophobia.

29:20 - "I consider myself a citizen of the world."

38:30 - A man in the audience begins his question by saying that he has a twenty one year-old son and that "every time he passes through an airport security line, he's pulled aside and frisked."

Really? Every time your son goes through an airport, he's frisked? Why hasn't CAIR filed a lawsuit about this?

48:00 - "The world is not black and white, it's not divided into good and evil."

Interesting theory, considering his company that day.

58:38 - "I'm exceeding my welcome here but I could do this all day." - Brennan commenting about going past his time allotment. Again, can anyone see the Tea Party getting this much time with Brennan? Shortly thereafter, Brennan calls on a man who identifies himself as Assad Aktar (sp?), president of the Congressional Muslim Staff Association (CMSA). Mr. Aktar bemoans the "Unindicted co-conspirator" label. This is an obvious reference to the Holy Land Foundation trial and the label that has been subsequently applied to groups like CAIR and ISNA successfully.

CMSA has quite a questionable record relative to judgement. Check out some of the individuals - via Fox News - who the group has invited to lead Friday prayers: Anwar al-Awlaki, the alleged inspiration for the Fort Hood massacre as well as other terrorist attacks; Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of the Muslim Brotherhood's founder; Nihad Awad, Executive Director of CAIR and supporter of Hamas; and none other than MPAC's Salam Al-Marayati.

Perhaps most alarming about that is the fact that the head of the CMSA has a problem with identifying Muslim Brotherhood groups in America as such. It makes one wonder how influential Muslim Staffers are and what the group's true allegiances are. This ability to influence politics in Washington, D.C. is precisely one of the reasons why the Muslim Students Association (MSA) - a Muslim Brotherhood group - is in existence.

Here's the full Q and A video with John Brennan on 2/13/10:

Did John Brennan's actions play a role in Benghazi attacks?

When coupled with the shocking claim by John Guandolo, that Barack Obama's chief counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, converted to Islam while a station chief in Saudi Arabia in the 1990's, some of the details released from a new book written by a retired Green Beret and a Navy SEAL may take on added significance. Among other things in the book, Brennan's orders while operating from the White House are identified as the motivation for the 9/11 attacks in Benghazi.

Brennan is Obama's nominee to replace David Petraeus as CIA Director.

But first, take a look at some other relevant information taken from the book, starting with power players at the CIA who wanted Petraeus gone as CIA Director.

Via The Daily Mail:

Media reports indicate that the FBI began investigating Petraeus' affair with Broadwell after Tampa socialite Jill Kelley, a friend of Petraeus and his wife Holly, reported that she had received threatening emails from the mistress warning her to stay away from Petraeus.

The authors say that Kelley's report may have started in the FBI investigation - but CIA officers pressured the Justice Department to keep the inquiry open.

Webb said his sources in the FBI told him federal agents wanted to close down their investigation when they learned that nothing illegal had happened, but they were told to keep digging. The FBI investigators, Webb says, never wanted to out Petraeus' affair.

The FBI reports to the Department of Justice, which is headed by Attorney General Eric Holder. Surely, something as big as investigating the CIA Director had to be something Holder was aware of. Based on the fact that the subject of the investigation was someone like Petraeus, Holder almost necessarily had to have approved pushing it forward, but to what end?

Was it - at least in part - to open the door for Brennan to head the CIA? Early indications are that authors Brandon Webb and Jack Murphy don't appear to go that far but they certainly piece together the groundwork for such a scenario.

Again, via the Daily Mail:

Murphy and co-author Brandon Webb also revealed that the September 11 Benghazi terrorist attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, was retaliation by Islamist militants who had been targeted by covert U.S. military operations.

The book claims that neither Stevens nor even Petraeus knew about the raids by American special operations troops, which had 'kicked a hornet's nest' among the heavily-armed fighters after the overthrow of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

John Brennan, President Barack Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser, had been authorizing 'unilateral operations in North Africa outside of the traditional command structure,' according to the e-book. Brennan is Obama's pick to replace Petraeus as head of the CIA.

If this is true, it would mean that Obama himself could be directly accountable for the attacks in Benghazi because Brennan was ordering these raids from the White House. As such, he was a direct arm of the Obama administration. These raids weren't just carried out on orders of the administration. They apparently weren't made known to the people who would ultimately face what could be identified as their consequences.

Petraeus was furious, they say, because he was kept in the dark about the raids being conducted without his knowledge by the Pentagon's Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) across Libya and North Africa.

Webb and Murphy claim that the September 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. consulate and a CIA outpost in Benghazi proved to Petraeus that he was an outsider in the Obama administration and that he would remain marginalized as long as he was at the CIA.

The central premise of 'Benghazi: The Definitive Report' is that the attacks were precipitated by secret raids JSOC had performed in Libya. An attack on the Islamist group Ansar al-Sharia days before September 11 may have been the final straw.

According to what Webb and Murphy are saying here, Petraeus was forced out and Brennan's orders to raid Islamist strongholds led to the Benghazi attacks on an unsuspecting consulate and CIA Annex. At least calling that last part into partial question is the fact that U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and Sean Smith both seemed more than just a little concerned about coming under attack. Stevens sent cables to the State Department requesting more security and Smith made reference to losing his life while gaming from the consulate / Special Missions Compound (SMC) on the day of the attacks. That said, it's still possible that a growing threat was felt but not fully understood.

Check out this particularly explosive excerpt from the book. It seems to add credence to the concerns of Senator Rand Paul, raised during his questioning of Hillary Clinton last month:

John Brennan also ran a highly compartmentalized program out of the White House in regard to weapons transfers, and Stevens would not have been trusted with that type of information. Stevens likely helped consolidate as many weapons as possible after the war to safeguard them, at which point Brennan exported them overseas to start another conflict.

Ostensibly, that "exported them overseas" part is a reference to weapons sent from Libya (the annex?) to the Syrian rebels (via Turkey?).

If Petraeus and Stevens were kept in the dark relative to Brennan's raids and those raids served as the motivation for the attacks on the consulate and annex, that places blood directly on the hands of those behind Brennan's orders and secretiveness with respect to them. Under such a scenario, it would appear that Brennan is less qualified to be CIA Director than Petraeus was after the affair became public.

Also, if the claims of Webb and Murphy are true, Obama must certainly know that truth. If so, why would he be nominating Brennan to replace Petraeus unless he was fully behind what Brennan was allegedly doing?

That leads us directly to a covert, pro-Muslim Brotherhood strategy coming directly from the Obama White House, which brings us back to the claim made by Guandolo, that Brennan secretly converted to Islam while in Saudi Arabia and that he was turned by the Muslim Brotherhood specifically.

People might point to Brennan's orders to raid Islamist locations in Libya as evidence that he did NOT convert to Islam because his new religion would forbid him from attacking his own. In reality, the concept of Muruna, espoused by none other than the Brotherhood's most senior spiritual adviser - Yusuf al-Qaradawi - sanctions the killing of Muslims if doing so furthers the cause of Islam.

Again, just operating under the premise that Guandolo has already put forth...

If Brennan's objective was to raid Islamist strongholds for the purpose of confiscating weapons that could then be sent to the Syrian rebels in the latter's fight to overthrow Bashar al-Assad, such a thing would be perceived by the Brotherhood as a greater good.

The bottom line, however, is this: If Brennan was the guy behind operations that both left the consulate and the Annex unprepared to defend against attacks caused by White House policy AND if Brennan was the guy behind secretly ordering weapons be sent to Syrian rebels, all of that is made much worse by Obama's decision to nominate him for CIA Director in the first place.

That would tie Obama directly to gun-running from Libya to Syria and THAT would make Fast and Furious look like child's play by comparison.

The cherry on top would be this administration's attempt at gun control in the U.S. while arming al-Qaeda.

Is World War II still being fought?

Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack

In 2007, President George W. Bush spoke at the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C. and was introduced by the mosque's director; the latter had a history that included time spent as a representative of an organization that has enabled Al-Qaeda. This was also the same mosque at which Bush spoke six days after 9/11/01 with Nihad Awad - Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) - at his side.

Before delving into the history of the Islamic Center of Washington of Washington, DC, consider the Ground Zero mosque for a moment. It was named 'Cordoba House' and the name was changed as opposition to the mosque grew and people began to learn more about the symbolic significance of the initial word choice, which was a city in Spain.

Via Raymond Ibrahim at MEF:

...the Christian city was conquered by Muslims around 711, its inhabitants slaughtered or enslaved. The original mosque of Cordoba—the namesake of the Ground Zero mosque—was built atop, and partly from the materials of, a Christian church. Modern day Muslims are well aware of all this. Such is the true—and ominous—legacy of Cordoba. 

More pointedly, throughout Islam's history, whenever a region was conquered, one of the first signs of consolidation was/is the erection of a mosque atop the sacred sites of the vanquished: the pagan Ka'ba temple in Arabia was converted into Islam's holiest site, the mosque of Mecca; the al-Aqsa mosque, Islam's third holiest site, was built atop Solomon's temple in Jerusalem; the Umayyad mosque was built atop the Church of St. John the Baptist; and the Hagia Sophia was converted into a mosque upon the conquest of Constantinople.

With that as a premise, shouldn't Americans take a second look at the motivation behind the Islamic Center of Washington, DC? If Islamic fundamentalists were to follow the formula of their forefathers and wanted to construct a symbol of future conquest, wouldn't they seek to do so at the heart of the Capital of the country that won the war?

Check out this excerpt from the history page of the mosque's website:

The Foundation’s membership quickly grew to include representatives from every Islamic nation in the world and American citizens. They all supported the Foundation’s appeal for funds. They managed to raise enough money that enabled them to purchase the land that the Center sits on now on Washington’s “Embassy Row”. They purchased the land on April 30, 1946, and laid the cornerstone on January 11, 1949.

Take note of those two dates in bold. Generally, when people think of the defeated axis of enemies in World War II, Japan, Italy, and Nazi Germany come to mind but the Nazis had an ally that was never defeated. In fact, that ally never stopped fighting; that ally was the Muslim Brotherhood. Again, if one accepts the notion that symbolism in Islam is very important, consider the date the land was purchased. Adolf Hitler's death occurred one year earlier, on April 30, 1945. Via History Learning Site:

None of the bunker’s survivors heard the shot that killed Hitler. At 15.15 on April 30th, Bormann, Goebbels, Heinz Linge, Hitler’s valet, Otto Gunshce and Artur Axmann, Head of the Hitler Youth, entered Hitler’s sitting room. Gunsche and Linge wrapped the body of Hitler in a blanket and carried it to the Reich Chancellery garden.

Coincidence? Possibly. How about January 11, 1949 - the date the cornerstone was laid. That date could be significant.

Tuesday 11 Raby` al-awal 1368 A.H. Laying the cornerstone on Jan 11, 1949 in the Islamic calendar is a day prior to the 12th day of Rabi-al-Awwal, which marks the birthday of the Prophet Muhammad, but keep in mind that Saudi Arabia is 10 hours ahead of the United States. While it was the 11th in the United States, it was very possibly the 12th in Saudi Arabia.

On June 28, 1957, President Dwight Eisenhower was on-hand to dedicate the mosque. Click here or on the image below for the video of a news report of the event at the time.



During his speech, Eisenhower said the following:

The countries which have sponsored and built this Islamic Center have for centuries contributed to the building of civilization. With their traditions of learning and rich culture, the countries of Islam have added much to the advancement of mankind. Inspired by a sense of brotherhood, common to our innermost beliefs, we can here together reaffirm our determination to secure the foundations of a just and lasting peace.

"Brotherhood" is indeed an interesting word choice. Eisenhower ended his speech thusly:

Our country has long enjoyed a strong bond of friendship with the Islamic nations. .  .  . Under the American Constitution, .  .  . this Center, this place of worship, is as welcome as could be any similar edifice of any religion. Indeed, America would fight with her whole strength for your right to have your own church and worship according to your own conscience. Without this, we would be something else than what we are.

Doesn't the "conscience" of the Muslim "Brotherhood" involve destroying America from within? Yes, it does. President George W. Bush returned to the Washington, DC mosque for the RE-dedication ceremony in 2007, fifty years after Eisenhower did it originally. The man who introduced Bush in the clip below is the mosque's director, Abdullah M. Khouj, who began his tenure there in 1984. According to the Weekly Standard's Stephen Schwartz, Saudi officials took over the mosque in 1983 and Khouj was subsequently appointed. Khouj has been a representative for the Muslim World League (MWL):

Khouj represented the Muslim World League (MWL), founded in Saudi Arabia in 1962 as an international agency for the propagation of Wahhabism. In 2006, relief branches of the MWL in Southeast Asia would be designated by the U.S. Treasury as financing fronts for al Qaeda. In addition, Khouj was admitted to the United States as a diplomat, allegedly serving as an attaché at the Saudi Embassy, but actually dedicated to advancing the most radical interpretation of Islam in history.

The MWL is significant for many reasons but one such reason is its involvement as the umbrella organization for the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA). This is the same IMMA where Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin, worked as an assistant editor for at least twelve years until leaving in 2009, to work for Clinton at the State Department. The man responsible for launching the IMMA was none other than Abdullah Omar Naseef, who was the Secretary General of the MWL when Khouj became the Director of the Washington mosque. The Saudi Manifesto, reveals the MWL / IMMA connection:

"It [Muslim Minority Affairs] will work under the umbrella of the Muslim World League (MWL) and the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO) and World Association of Muslim Youth (WAMY) and others."

Remember, Naseef also founded the Rabita Trust, an entity that was headed by Al-Qaeda founder Wael Hamza Julaidan and identified by the U.S. Treasury Department in October of 2001 as a terrorist organization. If Naseef was commissioned by the Saudi Royal family to found the IMMA, it would seem to indicate a willingness on the part of the Brotherhood and the Saudis to work together in some respects, the furthering of Islam in foreign lands, for example.

That's what the IMMA is all about.

It's important to remember that Khouj - the man who introduced Bush at the Washington, D.C. mosque re-dedication ceremony - was a representative of the MWL at the time of his being named director, according to Schwartz. The Rabita Trust was founded in 1988 by Naseef, four years after Khouj became the Director of the mosque.

Before watching the video of Bush's 2007 speech inside the mosque, consider that less than six years earlier, the Rabita Trust had been shut down by the Bush administration as a "Global Terrorist Entity". As a representative of the MWL, Khouj ultimately worked for an organization whose Secretary General from 1983-1993 was none other than Al-Qaeda financier, Abdullah Omar Naseef.

Note at the 1:15 mark in the video below that Bush references Eisenhower's speech from 1957 and quotes the former president. Said Bush:

"He (Eisenhower) asked that together we commit ourselves 'to peaceful progress of all men under one God.'"

This had not been the first time that Bush had conflated Islam and Christianity. William Murray, of the Religious Freedom Coalition chronicled his experiences in the days after 9/11 and wrote the following about what he witnessed on 9/14/01 at the National Cathedral, where then head of the Muslim Brotherhood's Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) - Muzammil Siddiqi - was in attendance:

Our Christian President had bowed his head to prayers offered to other gods, prayers that may have been for those who would destroy our nation and enslave our children to an alien religion. At that moment the hand of protection of the true God was removed from our nation.

Here is Bush at the 2007 re-dedication ceremony inside the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C.



According to Schwartz, the mosque was built at the urging of various Muslim groups, to include the Turks. In 1998, before becoming Prime Minister of Turkey - Recep Tayyip Erdoğan - quoted from the following poem during a speech:

"The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers..."

Go figure. Today, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamist government of Turkey seem to be working together.

And World War II may have a new front.

Ben Affleck: Conflict of Interest at State Department?

It's been all but confirmed that the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was a premeditated attack by al-Qaeda, which is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. As Frank Gaffney points out, the lack of security at the consulate, coupled with the false narrative of the Obama administration / State Department - that a video was the cause of the attack - both warrant further investigation into the extent of Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the U.S. Government, which is what Rep. Michele Bachmann called for back in June.

'Argo', the new movie directed by Ben Affleck is getting quite a bit of attention and promotion. It's a film Affleck is extremely proud of making. At a premiere screening of the film in Washington, D.C. on October 10th, Affleck referred to the controversial Deputy Chief of Staff to Hillary Clinton - Huma Abedin - as "a really close friend of mine" and went on to say:

“In fact, Huma — the reason why she’s here — is she was instrumental in helping us shoot the State Department. As you know, we shot at the real State Department. We never would have had any of that stuff in our research [otherwise]. ...Huma was enormously helpful, and obviously we invited her and she brought her husband. I look forward to seeing him.”

On October 12th, Affleck appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher and adamantly defended the Obama administration. By extension, he defended the State Department, which is home to his "really close friend" who was "enormously helpful" and "instrumental" in the production of his film. If not for Huma, according to Affleck, there wouldn't have been any access to the real State Department. That could potentially make Affleck biased in favor of the State Department. After all, it is taking great heat over its handling of the Benghazi attack.

It's called conflict of interest.

The Hollywood actor / director actually argued that Barack Obama cannot be expected to know about the security detail at every consulate all over the world.

That's not the point; it smacks of deflection and bias. The point is that Obama administration / State Department policies should have prevented it. When the Regional Security Officer (RSO) testifies that he felt like the State Department was his biggest obstacle after being denied security assets by his Regional Director (RD), we have a procedural problem that is a direct extension of the president's policies. Take a look at what RSO Eric Nordstrom said in sworn testimony when describing his failed attempts to get 12 additional security agents from that RD:

"His response to that was, 'you're asking for the sun, moon, and the stars.' My response to him was... 'Jim, you know what makes it most frustrating about this assignment? It's not the hardships, it's not the gunfire, it's not the threats. It's dealing and fighting against the people, programs, and personnel who are supposed to be supporting me.' I added to that by saying, 'for me, the Taliban is on the inside of the building.'"

Affleck also accused Republicans of purposely politicizing the attack so soon before the presidential election. Uh, not only did the attack happen so close to the election but there are four dead Americans and testimony from State Department officials that security was either denied or taken away, which left the consulate incredibly vulnerable. That doesn't even take into account the false narrative that the anti-Muhammad video caused the attacks, a false narrative the administration had to withdraw.

Incidentally, that narrative exactly mirrors the one coming out of the Muslim Brotherhood, a group to which Abedin has irrefutable familial connections; her mother is a leader with the Muslim Sisterhood.

Senator John McCain, who has been on the wrong side of the Libya issue ever since it began, issued the most vehement defense of Huma Abedin from the Republican side of the aisle in either House of Congress. His defense of Abedin included this quote:

"…it has been alleged that Huma Abedin, a Muslim American, is part of a nefarious conspiracy to harm the United States by unduly influencing U.S. foreign policy at the Department of State in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist causes."

At minimum, there appears to be a bureaucratic conspiracy at the Department of State that has had the consequence of benefiting al-Qaeda in Benghazi. U.S. foreign policy was indeed unduly influenced by something or someone before the attack. It's what we call a self-evident truth.

At the October 10th Oversight Committee hearing, Rep. Sandy Adams (R-FL) asked Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb (:30 mark) if it was her "sole discretion to deny extra manpower" in Libya. Lamb's response was, 'no'. Adams pressed Lamb for names of those who did... and she got them - Scott Bultrowicz and Eric Boswell.



The obvious question then becomes:

Did Bultrowicz and Boswell have sole discretion to deny extra manpower?

If yes, why did they do it? If no, what are the names of those who did? Darrell Issa and company should keep moving up the ladder. The fact remains that the administration's response to the Benghazi attack had the effect of benefiting all Muslim fundamentalists. Making the claim over and over again that the attacks were the result of the anti-Muhammad video were in sync with the claims of those fundamentalists. The Brotherhood's motives for doing so involved an agenda to criminalize any criticism of Islam. What was the motive of the Obama administration?

Egypt's president Mohamed Mursi, whose wife is also a Sisterhood member and close colleague of Huma Abedin's mother, made that very clear:



The Saudis are still pushing that line to this day. Incidentally, Huma Abedin is connected to a very influential Saudi herself - Abdullah Omar Naseef. For years (1996 - 2008), she served on the board of an institute Naseef founded. For many of those years, she served with Naseef.

Now then, why would U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, White House press secretary Jay Carney, and State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland all push the same narrative (riots caused by video) as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Saudis?

Also at the October 10th Oversight committee hearing, Rep. Trey Gowdy called for the testimony of Ambassador Rice and Carney - under oath - so that they can reveal who told them to blame the attack on a video and because Gowdy "want(s) to know why we were lied to."



One of the reasons why Huma Abedin's familial associations matter is because she can be easily conflicted. National Review's Andrew McCarthy explained that perfectly last August. If Affleck is "a really close friend" of Huma, wouldn't he be easily conflicted as well, especially when it was Huma who gave him access to the State Department as well as protocol guidance that greatly enhanced his film?

How many other people are conflicted as a result of their relationship with Huma Abedin?

Why is Catholic Relief Services promoting Mama Sarah's Obama Foundation?

In light of what Walid and Theodore Shoebat discovered about the Mama Sarah Obama Children Foundation, it was indeed shocking to see a glowing article about the Foundation on the Catholic Relief Services (CRS) website. In fact, the article - written by Debbie DeVoe - is featured prominently on the "CRS in Kenya" page (Click image to enlarge).

According to Musa Ismail Obama - Barack's cousin - the Mama Sarah Obama Foundation receives 90% of its funds from non-Muslim western countries and uses those funds to send Kenyans to Saudi Arabia to study in Wahhabist schools. The following three screen shots are taken from an interview given to Al-Jazeera by Barack's cousin, Musa. Note the subtitles in this video.

So, according to Barack's first cousin, who himself went to Saudi Arabia and memorized the Qur'an, funds from his own grandmother's foundation go toward converting Kenyans to a virulently radical strain of Wahhabist Islam. Again, why is an article promoting that foundation featured prominently on the Catholic Relief Services website? Here are some excerpts from DeVoe's piece:

Ever since Mama Sarah married President Obama's Kenyan grandfather, she's been helping kids in need. Over the last 40 years, dozens of children have lived in her home, and hundreds of others have received help through the Mama Sarah Obama Children's Foundation. The majority have lost one or both parents to HIV or are living in dire poverty. Mama Sarah focuses on 2 key things: making sure the children have enough to eat and helping them get an education.

Based on the claims of Musa, should we not ask what kind of education these children are receiving? How many are issued scholarships to learn in Saudi Arabia? Are there any donations to CRS that are directed to these scholarships? Has anyone decided to donate to Mama Sarah's foundation as a result of the article posted to the CRS website, thinking those donations were going toward humanitarian aid when they were actually going to the radical Islamization of Kenyan students?

Are Catholic dollars going toward the conversions of Kenyan children to Islam?

Is CRS aware of this side of Mama Sarah's foundation?

I contacted CRS and asked to what extent the group supported the Mama Sarah Obama Children Foundation. I was told I would be contacted after they researched the matter. As of now, I have not heard back. This post will be updated if and when I do.

Devoe then invokes a name very familiar to westerners - Bill Gates. His foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has been funding a project called the Great Lakes Cassava Initiative, which is intended to help farmers rescue and grow Cassava, an important source of food in Kenya. When CRS visited Kogelo (Mama Sarah's village), the village was found to have a great cassava deficiency.

"I wish [people] could bring more support so I can help more orphans so they can learn," Mama Sarah says. Since her grandson became president, visits to the Obama homestead have increased. Appointments must now be made in advance. A guard stands sentry at the front gate, having visitors sign a guestbook and keeping them from entering the compound before Mama Sarah is ready to welcome them.

CRS staff first visited the compound back in July 2008 when doing a general assessment for the Great Lakes Cassava Initiative. Mama Sarah's was one of many households interviewed to find out if any cassava was still growing in the area after disease nearly destroyed the crop in the 1980s. The survey found almost no cassava plants left, making Kogelo an ideal location for the program, which uses funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to grow and distribute disease-resistant cassava plants.

Does Bill Gates know what Musa Ismail Obama has said about the Wahhabist scholarships funded by Mama Sarah's foundation? If not, wouldn't he want to know if any of his funds allocated for growing cassava went toward any of those scholarships?

Soon after 2012 was ushered in, the Barack Obama administration was at war with Catholic bishops who vehemently objected to the notion that they be forced to offer a healthcare mandate that required Catholic employers to provide contraception and abortifacients.

Perhaps a few Catholic bishops should look into the Mama Sarah Obama Children Foundation.

Aligning with a foundation that seeks to turn Kenyan children into Wahhabist Muslims instead of Christians would likely be something the Catholic church would not want to be associated with.

Another Shoebat Bombshell: Obama family's Wahhabist connections

WOW!

The Obamas’ Kenyan Branch revealed in Shocking Video: Obama family member spills the beans about Barack’s Wahhabi connection

Saudi Grand Mufti reveals what Embassy attacks really all about

The U.S. Embassy attacks were not about a film; they were about an attack on one of the most basic rights guaranteed to Americans - the freedom to criticize with speech. It would appear that the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia has all but confirmed that.

Via CNS News:

Six months after declaring that all churches in the Arabian peninsula should be destroyed, Saudi Arabia’s top cleric called at the weekend for a global ban on insults targeting all religious “prophets and messengers,” a category that, from a Muslim perspective, includes Jesus Christ.

Saturday’s demand by Saudi grand mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Asheikh came on the same day that another of Sunni Islam’s most prominent figures, Egypt’s Al-Azhar University grand imam Ahmed el-Tayyeb, made a similar appeal.

Both men were reacting to an amateur video satirizing Mohammed, whose emergence on the Internet has been blamed for protests targeting American diplomatic missions across the Islamic world. According to wire services at least 12 deaths have been linked to the protests since Thursday, with deaths reported in Tunisia, Sudan, Pakistan, Yemen, Lebanon and Egypt.

The two clerics’ calls are a new salvo in an unremitting campaign by Islamic political and religious leaders, spearheaded by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), to pressure non-Muslims to treat Islam with deference.

It would seem that this Mufti has told us the reason for the attacks.

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?

Video: Remembering those who jumped on 9/11

As you watch this, ask yourselves one question:

Has everyone responsible for 9/11 been brought to justice?



The answer to that question is no.

h/t BNI

9/11 Bombshell Report: 3000 Americans for Three Saudi Princes

Link to 21-Page 9/11 Bombshell Report below...

Conspiracy theories about 9/11 are in abundance. Some even believe that it was an "inside job". We reject this notion completely. However, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the Bush administration made a conscious and very ill-advised decision not to go after the real perpetrators of the attacks - Saudi Government officials, Princes, and wealthy financiers. The accounts of the deaths of three Saudi Princes in particular don't just border on absurd; they cross the line into absurdity. Foul play is the only logical conclusion.

On the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Americans should come to grips with the fact that those responsible for attacking us have not been brought to justice. Yes, Osama bin Laden is dead and the nineteen hijackers who rammed our own airliners into our own buildings in order to slaughter 3000 Americans are long gone but who provided al-Qaeda with the financing necessary to carry out these attacks and why were so many individuals and entities who were responsible, not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report at all?

Three Saudi Princes were outed by Abu Zubaydah thanks to Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT); three hundred Saudis were permitted to fly out of the United States in the days after 9/11, many of whom were not questioned, including one of the three Princes; this means that U.S. authorities allowed at least one culpable Saudi Prince out of the country. Were there more?

The cold hard truth is that our government knew full well who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks and chose NOT to make them pay.

Unless, of course, you believe three Saudi Princes were solely responsible for the deaths of 3000 Americans.

9/11: 3000 Americans for Three Saudi Princes - New detalis about the Troubling Omissions of Saudi Arabia's wealthy from 9/11 Commission Report

Cross-posted at Shoebat

Infiltrated: Republican Party and Fox News

Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack

As we demonstrated with The Abedin “Affairs” with Al Saud, there is a movement afoot in the West that seeks to transform Muslim minority lands into Muslim majority lands. And while the Right points fingers at the left on an array of issues, we need to seriously examine this movement’s spigot—Saudi Arabia and the Royal family.

Prince Alwaleed bin Talal is a member of that family. He acquired 5.46% of Fox News Channel's parent Company - Newscorp. - in 2005. He is also its second largest shareholder. It was Fox News that provided a platform for perhaps the most stinging rebuke of Rep. Michele Bachmann's questions about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration in general, and Huma Abedin's background in particular. Edward Rollins - Bachmann's former campaign chief - denounced Bachmann with a piece entitled, "Shame on you, Michele" while Fox provided no counter-balance to speak of.

The Fox News website also reported the rebukes of Bachmann by John McCain and Republican House Speaker John Boehner, yet Bachmann's position was all but ignored.

So much for “Fair and Balanced”.

Alwaleed has purchased significant influence at major U.S. Universities and has contributed to CAIR. How does this all work? Well, it was explained by Al-Walid himself. In an article that appeared on Accuracy in Media's website, Diana West quoted from an interview the Saudi Prince granted to Arab News:

“Arab countries can influence U.S. decision-making ‘if they unite through economic interests, not political,’ (Alwaleed) stressed. ‘We have to be logical and understand that the U.S. administration is subject to U.S. public opinion. We (Arabs) are not so active in this sphere (public opinion). And to bring the decision-maker on your side, you not only have to be active inside the U.S. Congress or the administration but also inside U.S. society.’”

Even the very liberal, Soros-backed Think Progress, reported on bin Talal's influence over the Fox News Channel. In 2005, during riots in France (and two months after bin Talal acquired 5.46% of Newscorp.), the banner being run on Fox said, “Muslim riots.” Think Progress quoted bin Talal as saying the following:

“I picked up the phone and called Murdoch… (and told him) these are not Muslim riots, these are riots out of poverty. Within 30 minutes, the title was changed from Muslim riots to civil riots.”

In 2001, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly interviewed Sami al-Arian and aggressively pursued al-Arian when the latter seemed to implicate himself as being involved in terror fundraising. Al-Arian was eventually convicted and O'Reilly's efforts played a key role. It would be O'Reilly's high water mark on such matters.

In an exchange with bin Talal in 2011, Fox News host Neil Cavuto made the pecking order quite obvious when he referred to the Saudi Prince as “Your Highness”.



Then, in May of 2012, conservative host Sean Hannity welcomed none other than Ground Zero mosque imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf to his program to... promote his book. To his credit, Hannity was not as deferential as Cavuto was with bin Talal but he did provide Rauf with the platform to market his book.

Why?

The Democratic Party is lost and it has gladly welcomed Islamists so why are there Islamists with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood registering with the Republican Party? Part of the answer is that the Republican establishment is allowing them in. It is the Tea Party, which predominantly understands the Islamic threat that rejects Brotherhood elements.

Let us look at some examples.

NEZAR HAMZE
CAIR's Executive Director for South Florida is a man named Nezar Hamze. As such, Hamze is furthering the cause of CAIR's leadership. The group's national Executive Director and co-founder is Nihad Awad, a man who has expressed support for Hamas; he denounced the convictions of Islamic fundamentalists found guilty of the 1993 WTC bombing and did so while expressing a belief that the Mossad was behind that bombing. Prior to that Awad was the Public Relations Director for a Hamas front group. Incidentally, Hamas seeks the elimination of Israel.

Another CAIR co-founder - Omar Ahmad - was actually quoted by the San Ramon Valley Herald on July 4, 1998 as saying something that should be considered antithetical to both political Parties in the United States:

“Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran…should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”

If Hamze will not denounce the views of his group's leadership, he has no place in the Republican Party. Yet, Republican Party leadership will not denounce him.

MOIN "MOON" KHAN
When Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) made comments critical of CAIR and would not apologize, Moon Khan – a Muslim Republican who is a precinct committeeman and York Township board of trustees’ member – invited Walsh to his home for some 'dialogue' with some other members of the Muslim community. Walsh ultimately visited Khan's home and addressed more than 80 Muslims but did not apologize, though not for lack of trying on Khan's part.

Walsh's initial comments were critical of CAIR, a group sympathetic to both Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. As a Republican, why wouldn't Khan stand with Walsh? Instead, he painted Walsh as defensive and unyielding, as someone unwilling to apologize for his comments. Khan once served as a chairman of Brotherhood front, ISNA's 1997 National Convention's Media Relations Committee.

SUHAIL KHAN
The son of Mahboob Khan, Suhail Khan, was born to a man who co-founded two Muslim Brotherhood groups in the United States – the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Muslim Students Association (MSA). Despite this undeniable truth, while at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in 2011, Suhail said on camera that, “there is no Muslim Brotherhood in the United States.” With that one sentence, Khan denied his father's work and obviously did so because he didn't want the truth about it revealed.

Besides founding two Muslim Brotherhood groups, Mahboob Khan was an anti-Semite who agreed with the primary goal of the Muslim Brotherhood in America – overthrow the United States from within. The elder Khan never hid his true colors. In fact, as Paul Sperry wrote in Front Page Magazine, his son Suhail pledged to carry on his “dear father's shining legacy”. Conversely, at CPAC, Suhail denied his father's work. Yet, of all the people the Republican Party goes out of its way to distance itself from, Suhail Khan gets a pass.

GROVER NORQUIST
Then we have Grover Norquist who is perhaps the most prominent Republican to avoid accountability for his Islamist ties. Norquist is founder of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), a conservative group formed at the behest of Ronald Reagan in 1985. Then, something happened circa 1998. Norquist began to be influenced by two men who would later be convicted on charges related to terrorism – Abdurahman Alamoudi and Sami Al-Arian. According to Center for Security Policy's Frank Gaffney, Alamoudi's deputy – Khaled Saffuri – co-founded an organization called the Islamic Free Market Institute (IFMI), with Norquist. In 2005, Gaffney reported that he made it known to Norquist that the ATR founder was consorting with Muslim leaders who had unseemly ties. Gaffney wrote at the time:

The idea that Norquist was unaware that he was aiding and abetting Islamists became untenable after I, among others, made known to him that his outreach effort was reaching out not to peaceable, tolerant, pro-American Muslims... but to those who are none of the above – i.e., adherents to an Islamofascist ideology and/or their sympathizers, financiers and apologists.

Less than two months after the 9/11 attacks, in a an article published by the New Republic, writer Franklin Foer wrote about how Saffuri, Norquist's co-founder at the Islamic Free Market Institute, began ushering Islamic leaders into the White House shortly after George W. Bush's inauguration nearly one year earlier with the help of none other than Suhail Khan, an administration advisor at the time whose job was to help with Muslim outreach.

Moreover, as recently as 2009, Khan was listed as a Board member of both Norquist's IFMI as well as CPAC's American Conservative Union (ACU).

In 2011, when much of the backgrounds of Khan and Norquist were available for public consumption, it was reported that Gaffney was the one who had been banned from CPAC while Khan and Norquist proudly attended.

The Republican Party's silence over such an egregious, two-pronged affront was not just deafening; it was a damning indictment of itself.

GEERT WILDERS
Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders launched his anti-Islam Party known as the Freedom Party (PVV) and has seen tremendous success. Formerly a member of the right wing, yet liberal VVD Party, Wilders broke away because VVD supported welcoming Turkey into the European Union (EU). With the passage of time, Wilders is vindicated on a near daily basis in that regard.

American politicians can learn much from Wilders' path. VVD's support for Turkey's ascension to the EU is indicative of Islamic influence on the Party. When Wilders formed the PVV Party, he eliminated that possibility by identifying his Party as being “anti-Islam”. In 2010, The Week reported that Wilders would be launching his Party in both the USA and the UK.

IN CONCLUSION...
As long as agents of the Muslim Brotherhood are able to successfully portray anyone who opposes them as racist, Islamophobic, or intolerant, Brotherhood apparatchiks will continue to make strides in much the same way that Nezar Hamze, Moon Khan, Suhail Khan, Grover Norquist, and Alwaleed bin Talal have made strides.

Conservatives will one day be faced with a decision. When that day comes, they will have to decide if the Republican Party can be sufficiently held accountable for identifying groups and individuals sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood. If it cannot, the birth of an anti-Islam, Tea Party will be in order.

Many of those who call us racist are anti-Semites, which makes them racist projectionists.

Walid Shoebat is a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood and author of For God or For Tyranny

Ben Barrack is a talk show host and author of the book, Unsung Davids

cross-posted at Shoebat.com

Video: Tarek Fatah reports on Huma Abedin story

Gotta admit, while it'd be nice to see Tarek Fatah at least give some credit to appropriate sources, the fact that this story is getting this kind of attention is the most important thing.

Via MRC (h/t sheikyermami.com):

Memo to Dana Milbank: Did you read the Vogue piece on Huma Abedin before citing it?

Wish I would have caught this earlier but just noticed something about the 2007 Vogue feature article on Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton's closest advisor. Nearly two weeks ago, during a press conference at the National Press Club, Andrew McCarthy laid out his case for why the questions raised about Huma Abedin's background are legitimate. Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, wrote the following in his article about that case, which he distorted:

If Abedin is in fact a Muslim Brotherhood plant spreading sharia law in the United States, she’s using unorthodox methods: posing provocatively for a Vogue spread, then marrying and having the child of a Jewish congressman who sent out a photo of his genitals on Twitter. As Clinton’s personal aide, helping her boss with suits and handbags and logistics, she has not been in an ideal position to advance the alleged cause. Even McCarthy admits that she’s “not a policymaker.”

Then why go after her? It’s hard to escape the suspicion that it has something to do with the way she looks and how she worships.

McCarthy actually responded to Milbank's subtle screed by directing him to read the words of the Washington Post from one year earlier. Aside from violating a tenet of journalism by questioning McCarthy's motives (Chris Matthews' words), Milbank's reference to the Vogue article that featured Abedin, coupled with his subsequent assertion that Abedin is little more than a gopher for Hillary Clinton is inconsistent with the very Vogue piece he made reference to.

First of all, have a look at the cover page of the article:

hillary's secret weapon...

Huma Abedin: oversees every minute of Senator Clinton's day: Rebecca Johnson keeps pace with an indespensible insider.

Some relevant excerpts via Political Girl, which has posted the entire article:

“Both Hillary and Huma are extraordinary people who are also workaholics,” says Oscar de la Renta, who has often hosted the two at his house in the Dominican Republic. “The E-mailing! It never stops. I tell Hillary, ‘Just because you are working in the sun, that doesn’t make it a vacation.’ They are lucky to have found each other.”

“I don’t think you could say they are like mother and daughter. It’s more like an older sister-younger sister relationship, but it’s definitely familial,” according to a longtime Hillary friend, actress Mary Steenburgen.

“I’m not sure Hillary could walk out the door without Huma,” says Clinton adviser Mandy Grunwald. “She’s a little like Radar on M*A*S*H. If the air-conditioning is too cold, Huma is there with the shawl. She’s always thinking three steps ahead of Hillary.”

Abedin is remarkably cheerful about holding shawls-”There’s no detail too small for me,” she says-but there’s a lot more to her job than that. “Huma does make the trains run on time,” says Bob Barnett, the Clintons’ longtime personal lawyer, “and she does it well, which is important when you are as in demand as the senator is. But she also has an incredible ability to remember people and get things done. I’m always looking to her for her judgment and encyclopedic knowledge of what’s been said, where, and by whom.”

Among all of Abedin’s qualities, however, the most important may be the most ineffable-she says “no” better than anyone. “A lot of people who are in jobs with major public figures tend to get sour and exclusive over time,” says Barnett. “Huma is the opposite. She is always inclusive. She makes people feel good even when she’s saying no.” And there’s a lot of no when your boss is one of the most famous women on the planet, running for president.

Are we to believe that all of the e-mails have to do with the latest in handbags? When it comes to familial relationships, saying one exists between Huma and Hillary should be a little disconcerting when one considers the actual familial relationships of Mrs. Abedin. If Huma is like Radar, she knows quite a bit more about what's going on than Hillary does.

Those last two paragraphs would seem to indicate that Huma had tremendous sway over where the trains stopped, when Hillary got off, and whom she saw. Has any of that changed since 2007? Considering Huma's position, it would seem like another reason to know.

Along those lines, the following excerpt appears near the end of the article:

After hearing from so many people that Huma Abedin is the master of the velvet no, I finally got to experience it firsthand. Following Hillary’s breakfast in the Hilton ballroom, her traveling press person introduced me to the senator so I could get a quote about her employee. Just as I was about to ask, Abedin swooped in. “No, no, no,” she said, waving her hands. “She has to go.”

Clinton smiled and shrugged. “I go where I’m told,” she said.

Based on what is now known about the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA), we can now say with nearly complete certainty that the part of this stanza that refers to IMMA without naming it is false:

You can see why the First Lady wanted Abedin. Fluent in Arabic and a practicing Muslim born in Kalamazoo, Michigan, to a Pakistani mother and an Indian father, Abedin moved with her family to Saudi Arabia when she was two years old. There, her father, an Islamic scholar, founded an institute devoted to fostering religious understanding between the East and West. Her mother, a sociology professor, helped create one of the first private women’s colleges in the country. “I grew up in a very traditional family,” she says, “but there was never anything I didn’t think I could do.”

Of course, we now know that the institute is not devoted to fostering religious understanding between East and West; it is devoted to transforming lands and nations that currently consist of Muslim minorities into lands and nations that hold Muslim majorities.

Open your eyes, Mr. Milbank.