Evidence DOJ Colluded with ACLU over Arizona Immigration Law

Judicial Watch has come into possession of some disturbing emails between leaders within both the Department of Justice and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) that could demonstrate collusion between the two entities. In one exchange between the ACLU's Immigrant's Rights Project head, Lucas Guttentag and the DOJ's Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler.

Via Judicial Watch:

2:15 pm: Ed
I left a voicemail earlier today about checking in once the district court rules. Would you be available then?
[Redacted statement] And from all of us, thank you again for your argument on behalf of the United States.
Lucas

2:40 pm: Thanks Lucas. We should definitely check in once we hear. We’ll be huddling here as soon as we can. What is your thinking at this point on if/how you will proceed in various possible scenarios?
It was good to see you, even if only briefly, and to be on the same side for once! [Redacted statement] I have a feeling we might be seeing each other again on this case.
Ed

6:14 pm: Thanks Ed. Yes, a real pleasure to be on the same side.
I think we will be strongly inclined to seek an immediate emergency injunction from the 9th Circuit…
Can you share your current thinking with regard to the various scenarios?
Best Lucas

Yes, the Solicitor General in Eric Holder's Justice Department told a leader of the ACLU that it's good to be on the same side. Also noteworthy is Guttentag telling Kneedler that the ACLU was going to seek an emergency injunction from the 9th Circuit at about the same time U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton essentially did the same thing one day later.

More evidence Obama sides with Communists.

h/t Free Republic

Videos: Obama's Duplicity on Ronald Reagan

In the run-up to and in the wake of Barack Obama's State of the Union speech, the liberal media twisted itself into knots trying to compare Barack Obama with Ronald Reagan despite both men being polar opposites in every single way. The narrative clearly came directly from the administration's operatives and was fed to the liberal media, which proceeded to spit out the lies ad-nauseum. Carefully omitted by the left is this exchange between Obama and Hillary during the Democratic primaries of 2008.

The money clip comes at the 1:07 mark when Obama says, 'I spent a lifetime fighting against Ronald Reagan's policies.'

Via Blip TV:



Now, contrast that with the media narrative surrounding the SOTU address.

Via Eyeblast:



h/t Gateway Pundit

Liberal: Don't Fear Muslim Brotherhood

Bruce Riedel at the Daily Beast writes that the United States should not fear the Muslim Brotherhood and that what happens in Egypt is beyond our control anyway. How a long time CIA officer fails to understand the long term goals of the Brotherhood is virtually inexplicable. The Brotherhood or 'Ikhwan' doesn't believe in nation states and seeks a return of the Islamic caliphate by resurrecting the Ottoman Empire.

Says Riedel:

Egyptians will decide the outcome, not Washington. We should not try to pick Egyptians' rulers. Every time we have done so, from Vietnam’s generals to Afghanistan’s Hamid Karzai, we have had buyer’s remorse. But our interests are very much involved so we have a great stake in the outcome. Understanding the Brotherhood is vital to understanding our options.

The Muslim Brethren was founded in 1928 by Shaykh Hassan al Banna as an Islamic alternative to weak secular nationalist parties that failed to secure Egypt’s freedom from British colonialism after World War I. Banna preached a fundamentalist Islamism and advocated the creation of an Islamic Egypt, but he was also open to importing techniques of political organization and propaganda from Europe that rapidly made the Brotherhood a fixture in Egyptian politics. Branches of the Brotherhood grew across the Arab world. By World War 2, it became more violent in its opposition to the British and the British-dominated monarchy, sponsoring assassinations and mass violence. After the army seized power in 1952, it briefly flirted with supporting Gamal Abdel Nasser’s government but then moved into opposition. Nasser ruthlessly suppressed it.

While he's right about Karzai, he's not looking at this scenario playing out like Iran did. He's apparently bought the lie that the Muslim Brotherhood is peaceful. The Brotherhood simply advocates using peaceful means until it achieves power. As for Karzai, whether he was well-intentioned when he started out is irrelevant; he was given a Constitution, endorsed by the United States that made Shariah the law of the land in Afghanistan, which makes the rest of the document worthless. Karzai was in a 'no win' situation when he took power.

Riedel is correct about the formation of the Brotherhood in 1928 but he omits an extremely important fact. al Banna didn't just want an Islamic Egypt but an Islamic Caliphate where there were no Muslim nations, just one 'Ummah.' Today, there are 57 Islamic nation states. The Brotherhood wants to see all of them under one form of rule. Riedel either doesn't get this or endorses it.

The west needs to look at what's going on in Egypt through the lens of history in Iran. An oppressed people under the Shah, rose up but replaced him with a theocratic regime that was far more dangerous. Now, they are even more oppressed. This is what is at risk in Egypt.

Read it all..... if you can.

h/t Hot Air

Muslim Brotherhood Supports Protesters in Egypt

At first blush, the situation in Egypt seems to call for support of the protesters over a suppressive Mubarak regime, a similar situation to what transpired in Iran in 2009. There are some distinct differences, however. In 1979, the Shah was viewed by the people of Iran as an oppressive dictator. He was toppled and a far worse regime filled the void, led by Ayatollah Khomeini and the Mullahs. In 2009, Iranian youths rose up for freedom, to be released from the theocratic regime.

Here, in 2011, the Mubarak regime is certainly oppressive and the inclination is for people to view these protests through a lens similar to what happened in Iran two years ago. A problem with that thinking is that the Muslim Brotherhood has announced that it supports the Egyptian protesters.

Via Jerusalem Post:

The outlawed Muslim Brotherhood also expressed support for the demonstrations, raising the prospect that members of Egypt's largest and best-organized opposition group could join Friday's demonstrations in mass. If they do, it could swell the numbers on the streets significantly. But the group has stopped short of an outright call for its backers to turn out.

The Muslim Brotherhood called on its website for protests to remain peaceful. It also called for new parliamentary elections under judicial supervision, the introduction of far-reaching reforms and the lifting of emergency laws in force since 1981.

The Brotherhood is the Sunni equivalent of the Shiite Mullahs in Iran and would be far more dangerous to world stability than Mubarak's regime. The Muslim Brotherhood seeks an Islamic caliphate and the resurrection of the Ottoman Empire.

The Egyptian protests may more closely resemble Iran in 1979, not 2009.

Another prominent figure has publicly announced that he would help to LEAD the protests - Former International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) head Mohammed ElBaradei:

...the grass roots protest movement was getting a double boost likely to energize the largest anti-government demonstrations Egypt has seen in years. Mohammed ElBaradei, a Nobel peace laureate and the country's top pro-democracy advocate, was returning to the country Thursday night and declared he was ready to lead the protests. The country's largest opposition group — the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood — also threw its support behind the demonstrations.

Once again, another Nobel Prize winner has some disturbing allegiances.

Read it all.