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:

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.

Does Jeb Bush CAIR too much to be President?

With all of this talk about Jeb Bush running for president in 2016, his record of appeasement when it comes to Islamists in his state when he was Governor of Florida warrants closer inspection. That Presidential election year will mark the tenth anniversary of the forced resignation of O'Neal Dozier, a conservative Pastor whom Bush had put on the Judicial Nominating Committee in 2001.

In 2006, Dozier was fighting the construction of a mosque in the same neighborhood where his church stood. During a radio interview on the Steve Kane show, he made comments that were critical of Islam. Word got back to Bush, whose office then demanded Dozier's resignation. The larger issue not addressed by the Florida Governor was the validity of Dozier's concerns relative to who was behind construction of the mosque.

The following is an excerpt from Unsung Davids, which features a chapter on Dozier's battle with the Republican Party in general and Jeb Bush in particular:

The reason for Dozier's appearance on the (radio) show was to talk about the attempts of the Islamic Center of South Florida (ICOSF) to build a mosque near his church. As recently as 2009, ICOSF was listed as being owned by the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), which was identified in a 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document as being a member group... NAIT, along with the CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) and ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, the largest terrorism financing trial in American history.

There was no investigation against NAIT. As Governor, Jeb Bush had the authority to recommend one. Instead, Dozier was forced to resign and the red flags raised by the mosque at the root of his concerns were ignored. Bush's action against Dozier, coupled with his inaction against groups with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood in America put him on the very wrong side of a very real struggle in the United States.

Just one year prior to Dozier being forced to resign, Bush was invited to CAIR's annual banquet in Orlando, at which attendees were to be encouraged to contribute to the creation of a CAIR office in Orlando. Though Bush didn't attend, his office sent a letter to CAIR, which he signed, that said in part:

"It is a great pleasure to extend greetings and best wishes to all attending the Florida Chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR-FL) annual banquet... I commend your contributions to the protection of civil rights and freedom of religion... Once again, congratulations on your accomplishments and my warmest greetings and best wishes on your continuing success."

CAIR has had great success since receipt of that letter and much of that success has come as a direct result of people like Jeb Bush pandering to them.

Dozier's battle against a mosque in 2006 foreshadowed a similar battle over the Ground Zero mosque in New York City in 2010. The resulting backlash further validated Dozier's concerns and should give people pause when considering Jeb Bush's future as a presidential nominee.

Hillary Clinton wastes no time... Celebrates Muslim Holiday two days after 9/11 Attacks with man who supported Scotland's release of Lockerbie Bomber

Two days after an act of war was committed against the United States in both Egypt and Libya, on sovereign American territory, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in the Ben Franklin Room in Washington, D.C., celebrating the end of Ramadan (Eid Mubarak). With her was Ali Sulaiman Aujali, Libya's Ambassador to the United States, who resigned from that position under Gadhafi in early 2011 but became Libya's Ambassador to the U.S. again in August of that year.

Here is how Clinton began her speech, via the State Department website:

Good evening, and although I am many weeks overdue in saying it: Eid Mubarak. No matter how belated we are honoring Eid and the end of Ramadan, this is a cherished tradition here at the State Department. And I would like to thank all of you for being here, including the many members of the Diplomatic Corps.

Tonight, our gathering is more somber than any of us would like. This comes during sad and difficult days for the State Department family. We lost four Americans. They were good and brave men. They were committed to the cause of building a brighter future for the people of Libya. And we condemn the violence in the strongest terms, the violence against our posts in Benghazi, in Egypt, and now in Yemen.

The Libyan ambassador is with us tonight, and I want to take a moment to thank him for the support that his government and the Libyan people have shown to the United States in this tragedy, particularly the outpouring of feelings of grief and loss because of the killing of our ambassador.

Ambassador Aujali, would you mind saying a few words?

Before we get to the words of Aujali, perhaps we should take a look at his previous positions as well as his willingness to associate with Muslim Brotherhood-connected groups. AllGov reported in February of 2011 that Aujali was a supporter of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing:

In September 2009, he defended the transfer of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi from Scotland to Libya by explaining that most Libyans thought Megrahi was falsely convicted.

Question: What did al-Megrahi and the perpetrators of the 9/11/12 attacks have in common?

Answer: The blood of dead Americans on their hands.

In July of 2011, one month before he became ambassador again, Aujali spoke at the annual Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) convention. Not only that but he was introduced by none other than Council on American Islamic Relations Chicago (CAIR-Chicago) Executive Director Ahmed Rehab.



How many times must it be said that both the ISNA and CAIR were unindicted co-conspirators in the largest terrorism financing trial in the United States? The ISNA was identified as a Muslim Brotherhood group (by a Muslim Brotherhood document) that seeks the destruction of the United States from within.

One day after the recent 9/11 attacks, Aujali appeared alongside ISNA President Mohamed Magid and Haris Tarin, the director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). Two other individuals present are case studies in how Muslim Brotherhood groups in the U.S. provide politically correct cover for themselves by forming 'interfaith' coalitions, which are made up of useful dupes or complicit deceivers. In this instance, those two men are Rabbi David Saperstein and Rev. Welton Gaddy.

Incidentally, Tarin, Magid, and Saperstein each have something in common when it comes to Huma Abedin, Clinton's closest advisor. They all have either defended her or, in Magid's case, sat with her at the White House iftar dinner last month, at which Barack Obama spoke in support of Abedin.

Of course, Aujali, at both the event on September 12th with Magid, Tarin, et. al. and at the Eid dinner on the 13th, expressed sympathy for the victims of the 9/11/12 attacks.

Indications are that the attacks on U.S. Embassies in Cairo, at least, had the backing of the Salafist Nour Party. It's important to understand that Salafism is essentially the Muslim Brotherhood without the mask. An example might be the contrast between the most recognized cleric in Great Britain - Salafist Anjem Choudary - and Ground Zero mosque Imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf. Both men seem to seek similar ends but through different means.

When Salafists - who seem to have no trouble waving al-Qaeda flags - commit acts of violence and murder, as was committed in the 9/11 attacks of both 2001 and 2012, Brotherhood entities and individuals necessarily must distance themselves from such things, especially in the United States.

(If you remember, CAIR went out of its way to align with George W. Bush after 9/11/01)

Secretary of State Clinton then spoke again after Aujali was finished. When Clinton herself was done speaking, she introduced an interesting individual to the podium. Said Clinton:

Let me now call to the stage someone who has been a tremendous assistance to me in these efforts. Farah Pandith is the Department’s first Special Representative to Muslim Communities. And from the beginning, she has made reaching out to young people and civil society her top priority. Farah will introduce you to three young leaders who I am very proud of.

In 2010, the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report (GMBDR) wrote about Pandith's visit to the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies (OCIS). Pandith communicated that she had lunch with OCIS fellows, which she divulged via twitter. GMBDR had the following to say about the OCIS fellows:

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. Other Oxford Centre Trustees of note include:

Prince Turki Al-Faisal (former head of Saudi intelligence and former Saudi ambassador to the US)

Abdullah Gul (Prime Minister of Turkey, recently awarded the King Faisal International Prize in Jeddah)

Ali A Mazrui (US scholar with connections to the US Muslim Brotherhood)

Until 2006, global Muslim Brotherhood leader Youssef Qaradawi also served as an Oxford Centre Trustee.

Abdullah Omar Naseef is the same man behind the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, the Institute at which none other than Huma Abedin worked for 12 years, before taking her current position with Hillary Clinton.

Huma seated next to ISNA President at White House Iftar dinner

Yesterday, we commented on the news that President Barack Obama defended Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's closest adviser, Huma Abedin, at the White House Iftar dinner on August 10th.

What we didn't know is that Huma was seated next to the President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Mohamed Magid. The two seemed to be engaged in some friendly conversation and quite comfortable with one another. This is the same ISNA that was not only listed as a Muslim Brotherhood front group that seeks the overthrow of the U.S. Government from within, but also an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial. A 1991 document, penned by a Muslim Brotherhood leader identified the ISNA as a member group.

Here is the exact quote from that document that is perhaps the most alarming:

The Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions.

In this photo, Huma is at the far left (resting hand under her chin) and Magid is the man she's talking to on the right.

The U.K. Daily Mail has the video from which the screen shot above was taken. CLICK HERE to view the video. Footage of guests begins at the 1:24 mark.

In light of the firestorm surrounding the issue of Huma's background...

• Why would the White House have her seated next to the leader of a group that is part of the concerns raised by Reps. Bachmann, Gohmert, Franks, Westmoreland, and Rooney?
• Why would the president of a Muslim Brotherhood group in America be invited to the White House (responding that it's been going on for years is no excuse)?
• How well does Huma know Magid?
• Does Huma know that Magid leads a Muslim Brotherhood group?

We have entered some extremely surreal territory.

Magid was, in fact, named in one of the letters sent by Bachmann, et. al. to various Inspectors General. In particular, the letter sent to the Acting IG for the Department of Defense said, in part, the following:

...the Defense Department - among other federal agencies - has used a liaison with the Muslim-American community named Mohamed Magid. Imam Magid is the president of the largest Muslim Brotherhood front in America, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). In this regard, we note that the "Supreme Guid" of the international Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammed Badie, in September 2010, openly called for jihad by all "the Arab and Muslim peoples" against the United States.

As recently as February 2012, Department officials met with Imam Magid to apologize for the inadvertent burning of Qurans in Afghanistan.

Here is the most powerful Republican in Congress; he has defended Huma against Bachmann. The reason for his crying would seem to warrant his siding with Bachmann. Then again, crying about it might help explain why he's not:

The man who should have been listened to in the days after 9/11

While doing some research for this post, I came across a document that appeared to have been written less than one month after 9/11; it was written in the form of a journal but did not have an author's name (I have since learned it and reveal it at the end of this post ). It consisted of a first hand account of someone who lived near to and worked in Washington, D.C.; it was someone who worked near the Capitol Building; it was someone who knew Congressmen and Senators personally; and it was someone who was a strong Christian.

As I read what this person obviously knew in the hours after 9/11, it became blatantly obvious to me that the individuals at the highest levels of the George W. Bush administration knew it too. If the author of this account had been listened to then, the rise of Islam across the Middle East, Europe, and here in America since, may have been significantly reduced, if not outright prevented. These observations are so spot-on from someone who had much less information than Bush's inner circle did that I'm convinced this is not an issue of Monday morning quarterbacking; the Bush strategy after 9/11 was fatally flawed and his administration chose the path of least resistance. In short, the administration lied to us and to itself.

Read the entire account here if you'd like. I've excerpted portions that particularly struck me for their prescience at the time. This is some of the author's account of what he experienced on September 12, 2001:

By mid afternoon on Wednesday I was convinced that not only was the United States a victim of Islamic Jihad, but that the attack had been perpetrated by an organization controlled by a Saudi citizen and that most of those involved were Saudi, and that furthermore the attack was financed for the most part by Saudi businessmen and members of the Saudi royal family.

At the end of the day I made the following statement to my wife:

"These attacks were planned, financed and carried out by Saudi nationals and as a result the real culprits will never come to justice. We will bomb some third world nation like Afghanistan and our government will say our "moderate" Islamic friends with all the oil were not involved. Worse, we will put a handful of people in jail like we did the last time the World Trade Center was bombed. The Islamic fanatics will think a trade off of four or five in jail getting three meals a day, versus thousands of Americans dead, is a great deal.

So far, he accurately identified what the Bush administration would do with respect to Afghanistan. We also know that based on the fact that al-Qaeda financier - Abdullah Omar Naseef - was not held to account for his role in funding al-Qeada, there were some "moderate" Islamic friends who escaped American wrath over 9/11. Naseef was once the Secretary General of the Muslim World League (MWL), which is funded by the Saudi Royal family. He also founded the Rabita Trust, an entity that was identified by the U.S. Treasury Department as financing al-Qaeda; it was listed as a terrorist organization and its assets frozen one month after 9/11.

Here is an excerpt from the author's account about his experiences on September 13, 2001:

As I talked to congressmen and Senators my worst fears were realized. I carried documents with me showing clearly that most funding for Osama Bin Laden’s terror network came from moderate states like Saudi Arabia. While the Saudi government itself claims that it has no ties to these terror organizations, each year the government gives $10 billion to fundamentalist Islamic organizations, many of them located in the United States.

When I confronted one well known Senator about the millions of dollars going to Bin Laden’s terror network from Saudi businessmen, he said to me, "Yes, but they are coerced into giving it to him."

I responded to this by saying, "Maybe those millionaire Saudi businessmen should be more fearful of us than they are of Bin Laden."

Later that day almost the identical conversation took place between myself and a member of the House leadership and then again with someone within the Bush Administration. It was made clear to me that none of the wealthy Saudi Arabians who finance Islamic terror would meet the wrath of the United States for fear of angering the "friendly" state of Saudi Arabia. This was made clear to me by members of the House and Senate, both Democrat and Republican as well as by some in the Administration. I was appalled.

The author was quite correct about those "moderate" Islamic friends facing no consequences. Perhaps the most chilling excerpt from the author was found in his account of what he witnessed on September 14, 2001:

My stomach churned as I watched Muzammil Siddiqi, the Imam for the Islamic Society of North America, stand on stage with President George W. Bush in the National Cathedral. Imam Siddiqi is a radical extremist who has participated in anti-American demonstrations in front of the White House as recently as October of 2000. He has in the past called for a Jihad or holy war against this nation. While the Christian and Jewish leaders at the event prayed for our nation and for the dead and dying from the attack, Imam Siddiqi did not do so. At no time did he condemn the acts of the terrorists nor did he pray for America or for the families of those who lost their lives in the Jihad attack against the United States...

As the service closed I felt the chill of the presence of the awesome power of God. I was clearly reminded of the very first of the Ten Commandments, THOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME (Exodus 20:3). The National Cathedral had been defiled... 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. 

Since the Jihad attack on the United States on September 11th the President has surrounded himself with and sought advice from radical Islamic leaders who have openly called for the violent overthrow of the government of the United States. In addition, the President has invited six of the seven Islamic nations known to sponsor terror into his "coalition against terror". 

By late Friday it became apparent to me that our nation was in fact not going to fight a war on terrorism, but rather follow the same old track of "punishing those who actually committed the crime." This was not a "crime;" it was an act of war.

Siddiqi eventually stepped down as president of the Muslim Brotherhood group but he has not really left the ISNA; he now serves as the Religious Director for the Islamic Society of Orange County (ISOC), which recently welcomed Congresswomen Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Loretta Sanchez (D-CA).

Here's a portion of the author's entry about the week of September 17, 2001:

A sharp line began to form in Washington between those of us willing to tell the truth about what had happened on September 11th and those who wish to continue to live in the fantasy world of pluralism. The ACLU began a campaign to stop "oppression" of Muslims in the United States. They began the campaign by signing up organizations to protect the "civil rights" of Muslims.

Meanwhile the "moderate" Islamic organizations had a word of their own for Muslims in America: DO NOT HELP THE FBI. Internet sites warned Muslims that: "The FBI has a history of harassing and harming minority and immigrant communities. Some people are spending a long time in jail because they or their friends talked to the FBI."

As for the author's assertion that George W. Bush wrongly stood with radical Islamic leaders... Once again, here is video of Bush on September 17, 2001 inside the Islamic Center of Washington mosque. The Executive Director of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) - Nihad Awad - stood behind Bush as the president espoused the religion of our attackers:



He spoke at the same mosque more than one year later on December 5, 2002:



Those who argue that the Bush strategy was based on a tried and true adage that says, keep your friends close and your enemies closer, run into a big problem.

It's a strategy an excuse that has failed us miserably since 9/11.

Islam is on the rise all across the globe. The Muslim Brotherhood front groups Bush attempted to appease have smiles from ear to rear. In fact, Bush himself, in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal earlier this year, actually seemed to urge people to embrace the Brotherhood's rise in the Middle East:

These are extraordinary times in the history of freedom. In the Arab Spring, we have seen the broadest challenge to authoritarian rule since the collapse of Soviet communism. The idea that Arab peoples are somehow content with oppression has been discredited forever.

Yet we have also seen instability, uncertainty and the revenge of brutal rulers. The collapse of an old order can unleash resentments and power struggles that a new order is not yet prepared to handle.

Some in both parties in Washington look at the risks inherent in democratic change—particularly in the Middle East and North Africa—and find the dangers too great. America, they argue, should be content with supporting the flawed leaders they know in the name of stability.

But in the long run, this foreign policy approach is not realistic. It is not within the power of America to indefinitely preserve the old order, which is inherently unstable. Oppressive governments distrust the diffusion of choice and power, choking off the best source of national prosperity and success.

Today, Naseef, at least one of the men who should have been the object of as much American ire as bin Laden was, watches safely from afar as a woman who served with him on the Board of an organization he founded - the Islamic Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA) - now serves alongside Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as Clinton's closest advisor.

In the days and weeks after 9/11, George W. Bush's approval rating shot to 90%. When he left office, he was at 34%. 9/11 was his moment of truth and his approval rating steadily fell after the invasion of Afghanistan; they jumped after the initial success in Iraq, and they steadily declined thereafter. Bush had the American people behind him after 9/11 and he ultimately squandered much of our support by not leveling with us and by not identifying everyone who was responsible for hitting us.

In hindsight, the anger at Bush, Cheney, Rove, et. al. was not all that unwarranted, though the vitriol and expressed reasons for that anger often were. The decision to go into Iraq was a devastatingly wrong one. That should be obvious now. Iraq was a threat to Saudi Arabia more than it was to us. Saddam Hussein threatened the Saudis in a way not all that dissimilar from how he threatened Kuwait in the early 90's. In essence, the United States aligned with a nation that was actually culpable for 9/11, against their enemy.

It's time for us on the right to acknowledge that many of those who screamed the loudest about invading Iraq being the wrong thing to do, were correct. George W. Bush should do the same.

WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED AFTER 9/11
Based on the insights of the author of that prescient 9/11 account - William Murray of the Religious Freedom Coalition - the argument that Murray knew the truth while Bush and his advisors did not is poppycock. That's why this is not about Monday morning quarterbacking; it's about what should have been done.

POSSIBLE SCENARIO: In the days after 9/11, George W. Bush repudiates all groups associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. The president goes to Congress and seeks to have the Brotherhood labeled as a terrorist entity / enemy. CAIR, ISNA, MSA and any other front groups for the Brotherhood in the U.S. are put on notice and identified as what they are - entities that seek the destruction of the United States from within. The accounts of all such groups are frozen and leaders are either arrested or sent out of the country.

Any and all individuals with verifiable ties / loyalties to the aforementioned groups and who either hold jobs or any political influence inside the U.S. Government are prohibited from serving in those capacities.

Bush gathers all of his advisors and top Cabinet officials together to determine how best to become energy independent as quickly as possible. He orders is Energy Secretary to loosen as many regulations as humanly possible; this will encourage increased drilling and refining. With a 90% approval rating, the political capital at the president's disposal is virtually unlimited. The goal is energy independence within two years. Aggressive? Yes. Impossible? Americans have a history of exceeding goals in times of crisis and war. In this case, not letting a crisis go to waste would have been a good thing.

Bush decides to invade Afghanistan upon getting Congressional approval, which leads Saudi Arabia to believe it's successfully staving off American ire. Going into Afghanistan is the first in a hypothetical chain of events:

1. Target Osama bin Laden and destroy the Taliban, which was responsible for both running the terrorist training camps and harboring bin Laden.
2. Stay focused in Afghanistan while buying time to allow for energy independence in America. The world is made to believe that we are attacking those who we perceive attacked us. Singling out Saudi Arabia as being complicit in 9/11 at this point likely would result in a loss of oil and a debilitating energy crisis in the U.S.
3. Once the U.S. is confident it can survive the Saudi Arabian oil spigot being turned off, top tier al-Qaeda financiers - sources of Osama bin Laden's funding - are identified publicly by the President and targeted as enemies of the United States. Abdullah Omar Naseef, for example, is tightly connected to the Saudi Royal family but he has also been identified as a financier of al-Qaeda. Groups that Naseef has either led, founded or both, are proven to have been financed by the Royal family, which seeks to protect Naseef.
4. The decision is made by the Bush administration that while it will not target the Saudi family specifically, it will not respect the family's wishes with regard to which al-Qaeda financiers are off-limits. Bush then informs the Royal family that if the oil spigots are shut off, that policy is subject to change and the Royal family risks the same fate as those 'untouchable' al-Qaeda financiers.

Those who scoff and call such ideas ridiculous lose the argument when we see how reality has unfolded since September 11, 2001.

In either case, it's safe to say that Murray was right and the Bush administration was wrong.

Report: Maxine Waters expresses support for Sharia Law, Muslim Brotherhood

She is  a registered member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) caucus and now, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) is apparently on record as expressing support for sharia law. She did so while attending a town hall meeting at the Islamic Society of Orange County (ISOC), which is led by a man who used to be president of a Muslim Brotherhood front group in the United States.

Via One News Now:

A town hall meeting at the Islamic Society of Orange County earlier this year declared there is no conflict between sharia law, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Several lawmakers and officials in The Golden State -- including Democratic U.S. Congresswomen Maxine Waters and Loretta Sanchez; Los Angeles Police Department Deputy Chief Michael Downing; and Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca -- urged support for sharia law. In several recently released videos from the event, officials said that sharia is not a threat to the United States.

In case you're wondering if there's any connection between the ISOC and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the short answer is, yes. The Religious Director of ISOC is a man named Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, who was the president of ISNA at the time of 9/11.

Here is his bio from the ISOC website:

Dr. Siddiqi worked with many Islamic organizations in Switzerland, England and the United States. He was Chairman of the Religious Affairs Committee of the Muslim Students Association in US and Canada. Siddiqi also served as Director of the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C. He served two terms (1997-2001) as President of the Islamic Society of North America with Headquarters in Indiana. Since 1981, he is serving as the Director of the Islamic Society of Orange County in Garden Grove, California. He also served as the Chairman of the Shura Council of Southern California, an organization representing the Islamic centers, masajid and organizations in Southern California. He is the Chairman of the Fiqh (Islamic Law) Council of North America. He is a founding member of the Council of Mosques in US and Canada.

As the president of the ISNA, Siddiqi led a group that has pledged the destruction of the United States from within - through people like Waters and Sanchez. Here is the relevant excerpt from a document known as "An Explanatory Memorandum" that was introduced into evidence at the Holy Land Foundation trial:

The Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions.

Logically, "their hands" refers to people like Waters and Sanchez and the "hands of the believers" refers to people like Siddiqi, who led one of 29 like-minded groups (ISNA) identified in that Explanatory Memorandum, which was penned in 1991. Five leaders of HLF were convicted on all counts in 2008, related to funding Hamas.

Yet, Waters and Sanchez are standing shoulder to shoulder with a man who led the ISNA; they continue to get reelected; ISNA continues to gain access to power; and very few seem all that interested  in calling these congresswomen out.

Democrats are not the only ones to have had these head-scratching encounters. Here is George W. Bush with Siddiqi just 15 days after 9/11:

Ok, some might say, it's unfair to point this out based on the gift of hindsight, that Bush didn't know. Simply not possible. Ask yourselves how much access to intelligence the Bush administration had after 9/11. It was an all-hands-on-deck time. Are we to believe his administration did not know about Siddiqi's background?

Not buying it.

Another reason given by some for Bush's coziness with then ISNA president is the "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" credo. Even if we give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt on that, it begs one very simple question:

How's that working out?

It's Time for Karl Rove to come clean

After publishing this post yesterday, which included a photo circa 2000 that shows Abdurahman Alamoudi meeting with George W. Bush and Karl Rove, I decided to look into the book that Rove was quite likely given by the delegation seen in the photo. It's entitled, The Cultural Atlas of Islam and was written by a man named Ismail Al Faruqi in 1986.

Now, obviously, Karl Rove cannot be held accountable for accepting a book from a group he met with; it happens all the time. In fact, in 2009, Barack Obama accepted a far left-wing book from Hugo Chavez. That made news because Chavez wanted to make a public spectacle of himself.

However, there were red flags raised by the Secret Service and Intelligence officials relative to both Alamoudi and Sami Al-Arian. Yet, Bush and/or Rove met with them on more than one occasion after this book was put into Rove's hands. If there were suspicions about Alamoudi prior to these meetings, wouldn't it have been prudent to investigate the author of material this group felt was important enough to put into Rove's hands?

According to Newsweek, via History Commons:

...Alamoudi and the AMC had been previously criticized for their ties to Hamas and other militant groups and figures (see March 13, 1996). Bush and/or Rove will meet with Alamoudi on other occasions (see (see July 2000, June 22, 2001, September 14-26, 2001). US intelligence learned of ties between Alamoudi and bin Laden in 1994 (see Shortly After March 1994);

Yes, Alamoudi visited the White House after 9/11. As it turns out, Al Faruqi is identified as the founder of one of the Muslim Brotherhood front groups listed as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial (HLF). That group is the Association of Muslim Social Scientists of North America (AMSS). Here is what Discover the Networks says about AMSS:

Established in 1972 by Temple University professor Ismail Raji al-Faruqi and University of Pennsylvania graduate student Abdulhamid AbuSulayman, the Association of Muslim Social Scientists of North America (AMSS) is a constituent organization of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and a sister organization of the International Institute of Islamic Thought.

AMSS describes itself as “an independent membership-based organization that encompasses the United States and Canada.” It has no corporate, legal or financial relationship with any organization bearing the name of AMSS in any other country. Its mission is “to provide a forum through which Islamic positions on various academic disciplines can be promoted, with an emphasis on the social sciences and humanities”; to further “the continuity of the Islamic intellectual heritage”; and “to serve the interests of the larger Muslim community by bringing together Muslim and non-Muslim scholars in an academic setting to examine and define Islamic perspectives on issues of global concern that contribute to the prosperity of Muslims around the globe and the betterment of humanity.”

AMSS collaborates with the International Institute of Islamic Thought to publish the American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences (AJISS), which is distributed in more than 50 countries around the world. Launched in 1984, AJISS is an interdisciplinary publication of scholarly research on all facets of Islam and the Muslim world: politics, history, economic philosophy, metaphysics, psychology, religious law, and Islamic thought.

So, the author of the book given to Rove in 2000 was closely affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, a group that has pledged to work toward the destruction of the United States. The International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), another unindicted co-conspirator in HLF also lists al-Faruqi as its founder.

Are we to believe that the Bush administration did not know of the nefarious intentions of these individuals and groups?

Take a look at an article written by Franklin Foer on November 12, 2001 that was published by The New Republic:

On the afternoon of September 26, George W. Bush gathered 15 prominent Muslim- and Arab-Americans at the White House. With cameras rolling, the president proclaimed that "the teachings of Islam are teachings of peace and good." It was a critically important moment, a statement to the world that America's Muslim leaders unambiguously reject the terror committed in Islam's name. 

To the president's left sat Dr. Yahya Basha, president of the American Muslim Council, an organization whose leaders have repeatedly called Hamas "freedom fighters." Also in attendance was Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, who on the afternoon of September 11 told a Los Angeles public radio audience that "we should put the State of Israel on the suspect list." And sitting right next to President Bush was Muzammil Siddiqi, president of the Islamic Society of North America, who last fall told a Washington crowd chanting pro-Hezbollah slogans, "America has to learn if you remain on the side of injustice, the wrath of God will come." Days later, after a conservative activist confronted Karl Rove with dossiers about some of Bush's new friends, Rove replied, according to the activist, "I wish I had known before the event took place."

Again, it's time for the highest members of the Bush administration - including Karl Rove - to come clean about who they met with, what they knew about them, and why they continued meeting with them after they knew it.

The stakes are too high and the jig is very close to being up.

Bachmann fires off 16-Page letter to Muslim Congressman, Keith Ellison

It looks like Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) may rue the day he decided to respond with a written letter to five congressman who have legitimate concerns about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration. In response to a 2-page letter from Ellison that accused Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) of only using one source to express concerns to five Inspectors General (State, Justice, DoD, DNI, and DHS) about the possible influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. Government, Bachmann sent Ellison a 16-page Bombshell.

Via SC Times:

U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann is asking how a top aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton got security clearance given what Bachmann describes as the aide’s family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood movement.

Bachmann also says an investigation of “potential Muslim Brotherhood infiltration” of President Barack Obama’s administration is needed because of interactions between federal agencies and what she calls U.S. front groups for the Muslim Brotherhood, an international Islamist group that recently came to power in Egypt.

The comments come in Bachmann’s new response to U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison’s call for Bachmann to back up the information on which she based a request for federal investigations into whether the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the U.S. government.

In his July 12th letter, Ellison attempts to assert that the charges / claims made by Bachmann and four other Congressmen are based solely on one source - Frank Gaffney. Ellison attempted to smear Gaffney in the letter before ending the 2-page letter thusly:

Despite Mr. Gaffney’s record of unsubstantiated allegations, you appear to have based your letters to the Inspectors General on his views. 

I request that you provide my office a full accounting of the sources you used to make the serious allegations against the individuals and organizations in your letters. If there is not credible, substantial evidence for your allegations, I sincerely hope that you will publically (sic) clear their names.

In her 16-page retort, Bachmann refutes the notion that she only has one source and includes 59 new footnotes. Bachmann writes:

I do note that the facts we presented in the Inspector General request letters are based on information presented by U.S. Government officials in court documents, court evidence, correspondence and briefings with Congress and public statements, in addition to known media reporting. These letters were far from sole-sourced as you maintain in your letter.

While I can't speak on behalf of the other signatories of these letters, nor am I able to get into the private discussions and documentation received by the various House committees represented by the signatories on these matters that motivated these letters to the various Inspectors General, out of respect to you I am happy to respond to some of your concerns, provide the sources you ask for, as well as clarify a few points that may have been misunderstood or misrepresented.

Of all the areas of concern in the letters to the various OIG's, the subject of Hillary Clinton's closest aide - Huma Abedin - having familial ties to the Muslim Brotherhood may have struck the biggest nerve with Ellison. One of the sources Bachmann cites in her letter to Ellison is Jorgen S. Nielsen of the BYU Law Review:

Professor Syed Z. Abedin (Huma's father) took a different approach in dealing with the contemporary challenged to the traditional Islamic views. Trained in social science and being of Indian origin, Professor Abedin was the founder of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA) in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, an institution that had the quiet but active support of the then General Secretary of the Muslim World League, Dr. Umar Abdallah Nasif.

Incidentally, Nasif (Nasseef) is widely regarded as a Godfather of al-Qaeda. Bachmann continues:

For us to raise issues about a highly-based U.S. Government official with known immediate family connections to foreign extremist organization is not a question of singling out Ms. Abedin. In fact, these questions are raised by the U.S. Government of anyone seeking a security clearance.

Something tells me that this is far from over but Ellison has put himself in a bit of a box by penning a letter that puts him on the Congressional record as essentially, defending enemies of the United States (Hamas / Muslim Brotherhood).

For more about Ellison's letter, click here.

Keith Ellison sends reply to Bachmann; uses Republicans to make argument

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim elected to U.S. Congress, has taken great offense at a series of letters sent to the Inspectors General of various Departments and Agencies demanding answers about Muslim Brotherhood influence in the halls of U.S. power.

Ellison has now sent a letter of his own to Reps. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Trent Franks (R-AZ), Thomas Rooney (R-FL), and Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA). The letter demands that Bachmann and her fellow congressmen reveal their sources and the evidence of their claims. One of those claims is that Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin, has familial ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

You can read more about the case against Huma Abedin and Hillary here but it's also important to focus on the strategy Ellison is employing in his attack against Bachmann; he cites Republican Party officials who have been identified as being problematic in the fight against Islamic fundamentalism.

Ellison's letter, via Think Progress, states:

As evidence for these allegations, you reference MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com, a Web site created by Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy (CSP).

Mr. Gaffney has a long history of making unsubstantiated anti-Muslim allegations, including:

• Accusing then-ISAF Commander General David Petraeus of “submission” to Islamic law because he condemned Florida pastor Terry Jones’ burning of a Quran;

• Accusing presidential candidate Herman Cain after meeting with ISNA of meeting with “the largest Muslim Brotherhood front in the United States” (language that appears verbatim in your letters);

• Accusing New Jersey Governor Chris Christie of “corruption” and “treason” for appointing a Muslim lawyer to be a judge;

• Accusing anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist of “enabling and empowering Muslim Brotherhood influence operations against our movement and our country”;

• Accusing former Bush Administration official Suhail Khan of conducting a “Muslim Brotherhood Influence Operation” against the American Conservative Union (ACU), the host of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), and

• Accusing Republican Virginia House of Delegates member David Ramadan of waging “stealth jihad” by seeking elected office.

The sad truth is that Ellison is right about Gaffney's claims, which is an indictment of the people whom Gaffney identifies. Starting at the beginning... In a 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document penned by Mohamed Akram, The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) was identified as a Muslim Brotherhood organization.

That document said, in part:

The Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions.

Ok, so instead of Ellison pointing to Herman Cain's visit with the head of the ISNA - Mohamed Magid - in 2011 as a refutation of Bachmann's concerns, Americans should be questioning Cain's decision to do so.

Of course, let's not forget Chris Christie's bombastic response to a legitimate question about why he appointed a Muslim with questionable ties to a county judgeship. His defense of Sohail Mohammed is definitely suspect.

Then, of course, there is the Grover Norquist / Suhail Khan dynamic. Here is video courtesy of Jay Mark Campbell from CPAC 2011. Note the absurd claim by Khan, whose father was an early founder of both ISNA and another Muslim Brotherhood group - the Muslim Students Association (MSA), that there is "no Muslim Brotherhood in the United States." Take note at the 2:45 mark, where Khan doesn't just lie but he pretends that the lifework of his father doesn't exist.

Isn't that a bit disrespectful?

Khan and Grover Norquist go way back. Conservatives who tend to blindly support the Republican Party as the best of two options should be extremely wary. In much the same way that the Democratic Party was infiltrated, there are forces at work that seek to do the same with the Republican Party, whether wittingly or unwittingly. By using the argument that he does, Ellison seems to be banking on those who blindly support the Republican Party.

Muslim Congressman Backtracks on 'Madrassas' comment

Contrast this post with the one I put up yesterday that included an interview with Retired Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer on Fox & Friends. The subject of that interview was a newly released report, sponsored in part by the DHS, that concluded 'rightwing extremism' is a growing concern in America while all but ignoring Islamic extremism.

Now, as it stands today, there are two Muslim Congressmen. One is Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) and the other is Rep. Andre Carson (D-IN). This video is now becoming a problem for Carson because it shows him at a recent ICNA-MAS convention at which he said that American public schools should be modeled after Islamic "madrassas."

Via Breitbart TV, via Shoebat:



ICNA stands for Islamic Circle of North America and it is a Muslim Brotherhood group that seeks the overthrow of the United States government from within, a fact that is demonstrably provable, courtesy of a 1991 document that was seized by U.S. authorities and used in the Holy Land Foundation trial.

MAS stands for the Muslim American Society, a group that was formed one year after that 1991 document was penned. Unfortunately for the MAS, that group has identified the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Muslim Students Association (MSA) - both groups that were also identified in that 1991 document as Muslim Brotherhood groups - as like minded organizations.

So while the DHS is building up the rightwing extremism straw man, a Congressman of the United States is speaking to groups and individuals who should be considered domestic enemies.

Well, apparently, this revelation wasn't lost on Carson, who is now walking back his assertion that American public schools should be modeled after madrassas.

Via Huffington Post (h/t WZ):

My remarks at ICNA call attention to the fact that faith-based schools throughout this country have excelled because of innovative instructional methods and a willingness to engage different learning styles – whether visual, auditory, or kinesthetic. While I do not believe that any particular faith should be the foundation of our public schools, it is important that we take note of the instructional tools these schools utilize to empower their young people. Christian, Jewish, and Islamic schools have experienced notable success by casting off a one-size-fits-all approach to education, and this is a model we must replicate. Having attended a parochial elementary school myself, I’ve seen these successes first hand. If we are going to take American education to the next level, we must expand successful models and implement the practices that will enable success for our students.

Busted... Liar...

In a sane world, Carson would be brought up on charges of treason as these groups seek the destruction of western civilization... in their own words, which are stated clearly in that 1991 document. Here is a direct quote:

The Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions.

Unfortunately, the world is a little insane right now.

Renege: Muslim Brotherhood taking the mask off in Egypt and Tunisia

There is a narrative being pushed by western leaders right now that the Muslim Brotherhood is "moderate" in comparison to Iran. That narrative has come from none other than the Muslim Brotherhood itself. Naturally, once that premise is accepted, the Brotherhood is perceived as the lesser of two evils and is supported by the West in places like Syria, for example.

This is exactly how the Brotherhood wants it and the West is playing right into their hands. The latest indicator can be found in both Tunisia and Egypt, where Islamists there are already reneging on their pledge to moderate.

From Reuters, via Jerusalem Post:

PARIS - After months of reassuring secularist critics, Islamist politicians in Tunisia and Egypt have begun to lay down markers about how Muslim their states should be -- and first signs show they want more religion than previously admitted.

Islamist parties swept the first free elections in both countries in recent months after campaigns that stressed their readiness to work with the secularists they struggled with in the Arab Spring revolts against decades-long dictatorships.

With political deadlines looming, the Tunisian coalition led by the reformist Islamist Ennahda party and the head of Egypt's influential Muslim Brotherhood both made statements this week revealing a stronger emphasis on Islam in government.

Popular List, an Ennahda coalition member tasked with writing Tunisia's new constitution, announced on Monday its draft called Islam "the principle source of legislation" -- a phrase denoting laws based on the sharia moral and legal code.

On Tuesday, Egyptian Brotherhood leader Mohamed Badie said his group wanted a president with "an Islamic background." That term is vague, but not as vague as the conciliatory "consensus candidate" talk heard from most parties until now.

Secularists in both countries warned voters against trusting the Islamists and these subtle changes could have come straight from a secularist playbook on how Islamists would gradually insert more religion into the political and legal systems.

The Brotherhood has been very effective at duping the west for several reasons, not least among them being the power its organizations have been able to acquire in western halls of power (CAIR and ISNA among them). Another reason is the tactic known as Muruna; it affords Islamists the ability to violate the very tenets of Islam in order to deceive in the name of a greater goal. This technique also goes a long way toward portraying themselves as moderate.

h/t Weasel Zippers 

Illinois Governor Appoints Muslim Brotherhood Leader

Illinois Governor and Rod Blagojevich successor, Pat Quinn (D) has appointed the Secretary-General for the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) to an official advisory council. Again, ISNA is a member organization of a group whose charter consists of a mandate to bring down America from within by... gaining positions of political power and influence. It also was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial, the largest terrorism financing trial in US history. It should be no surprise then, that Saafa Zarzour does indeed have extensive ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Via GMBDR:

Mr. Zazour is a board member and President of the Chicago chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR.) Investigative research posted on GMBDR has determined that CAIR had it origins in the U.S. Hamas infrastructure and documents released in the Holy Land Trial have revealed that the founders and current leaders of CAIR were part of the Palestine Committee of the Muslim Brotherhood as well as identifying the organization itself as being another part of the U.S. Brotherhood. A recent post discussed an interview with the Deputy leader of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in which he confirms a relationship between his organization and CAIR.

CAIR was another unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF trial.

In a press release, all the members appointed to the council are listed. Interestingly, one of them is Ahmed Rehab of CAIR. In 2008, while appearing on the O'Reilly Factor, Rehab expressed solidarity with imam Jamal Said in Chicago. Said was a close friend of Osama bin Laden's mentor, Abdullah Azzam.

Read it all.

Video: Ann Coulter still Hearts Chris Christie, Silent on his Islamist Problem

When New Jersey governor, Chris Christie came out last month and slammed anyone who had problems with his appointing Islamist-connected judge, Sohail Mohammed to a Superior court judgeship in Passaic county, Ann Coulter, who has been among the most vocal Chris Christie supporters for some time now, was silent. The appointment of Mohammed is not something to dismiss; Christie's attack on those who have a problem with it only makes it worse. Four of the most prominent experts on the Muslim Brotherhood's attempt to infiltrate America expressed very strong opposition to Christie's actions. Among them are Andrew McCarthy, Daniel Pipes, Steve Emerson, Robert Spencer, Andrew Bostom, and others.

From McCarthy:

For the record, Sohail Mohammed is not just an attorney. He served as a board member for an Islamist organization, the American Muslim Union, which, as Commentary’s Jonathan S. Tobin and terrorism expert Steve Emerson have shown, has a checkered past of rationalizing jihadist attacks and supporting jihadists.

How about Emerson at IPT:

As general counsel, Mohammed bucked several high-profile terror support prosecutions. After authorities shut down the Holy Land Foundation near Dallas for alleged Hamas support in 2001, Mohammed told the Record of Bergen County, N.J., that the government was unjustly singling out Muslim organizations."People see this as another example of how heavy-handed the administration has been thus far," he said.

Daniel Pipes revealed that CAIR endorsed Christie's decision:

Christie won the hearty endorsement today of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, whose New Jersey branch issued a statement thanking him, applauding him, and urging a note of gratitude be sent him via the "Contact Us" page at the governor's website.

When CAIR is pleased with something, 99.99999% of the time, it's bad for America. On July 26th, Christie attacked anyone who had a problem with his appointment of Sohail Mohammed. Coulter was silent. Now, more than two weeks later, she appeared on Fox News and continued to express her wonton desire to see Christie as the next president. No one brings up the issue in this exchange but it's also interesting that Coulter even expresses how much she likes Herman Cain, who once talked tough about Islamists and sharia law but recently went to a mosque and apologized to the president of the Islamic Society of North America, Mohammed Magid. HERE is Cain's statement.

Something is very wrong. Coulter's silence on this issue is deafening. After Christie's comments, I thought she might just quietly withdraw her support but this clip demonstrates she remains all in.



h/t The Blaze