Where was Hillary's Muslim Deputy when Benghazi talking points were being altered?

At the time of the 9/11/12 attacks in Benghazi, one of Hillary Clinton's deputies was a woman named Huma Abedin. To this point, Abedin's name has not been introduced into the scandal publicly. However, at the May 8th Oversight Committee hearing, Rep. Trey Gowdy referred to an email sent by Beth Jones, Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs. As Gowdy listed the names of people Jones sent that email to, he ended with:

"...near as I can tell, to almost everyone in the State Department."

In that email - sent one day after the attacks - Jones made it clear to everyone on her distribution list that Ansar al-Sharia had been responsible. Was Abedin - Hillary's Deputy Chief of Staff at the time - included in that e-mail? Based on Gowdy's claim, coupled with Abedin's high position at State, it's certainly possible and it would be relevant as Ansar al-Sharia and al-Qaeda are both offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood, a group to which Abedin is linked extensively through her family.

Shouts of 'guilt by association' do not apply in this case. As has been reported previously, relationships and associations very much matter when it comes to the security clearance that came with the position Abedin held.

As the details of the Benghazi cover-up have been unfolding, it's become widely accepted that the CIA talking points were altered because the truth about Ansar al-Sharia / al-Qaeda being behind the attacks disrupted the pre-election narrative of the Obama administration. However, as is often the case with political agendas, shared ends do not necessarily equate to shared motives.

If anyone had a stake in making sure that the talking points did not identify Ansar al-Sharia, al-Qaeda, or even Islamic extremists, Abedin's mother and brother may very well have been candidates. Had Brotherhood offshoot groups been implicated in the murders of four Americans - one an Ambassador - on American soil, it likely would have been a little too close for the comfort of Brotherhood operatives.

Saleha (Mahmood) Abedin is a very prominent figure in the Muslim Brotherhood and is one of 63 leaders in the Muslim Sisterhood. Brother Hassan Abedin has a rather interesting history with the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood - Yusuf al-Qaradawi - and al-Qaeda financier Abdullah Omar Naseef.

As the purveyor of the Brotherhood tactic known as Muruna, Qaradawi is very much concerned about not blowing the Brotherhood's cover. While terror groups like al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia share his Sunni strain of Islam as well as his objectives, they certainly don't share his tactics. In fact, the tactics of these groups actually serve to undermine the Brotherhood's more stealthy, political agenda.

Access is the mother's milk of politics and let there be no doubt that Huma's mother had access - through her daughter - to Hillary. As the Vice Dean at Dar Al-Hekma College in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia Saleha hosted Hillary in 2010 with the help of her daughter, Huma.

In recent days, several individuals have been implicated in removing references to Ansar al-Sharia, al-Qaeda, and Islamic extremists from the CIA's version of the talking points before UN Ambassador Susan Rice lied on five separate Sunday talk shows on September 16th.

Let's take a look at the names of those who have been revealed as being involved to varying degrees. To illustrate how high-ranking Abedin's position at State was, consider the name Jake Sullivan. Not only did he hold the same title - Deputy Chief of Staff to Hillary Clinton - but he appears to have been the point man for the State Department who worked with Deputy CIA Director at the time - Mike Morell - and White House adviser - Ben Rhodes - on that high stakes Saturday, September 15th meeting. It was during that meeting that the now infamous talking points took their final form.

As an aside, since his involvement in altering the talking points, Sullivan has since become Vice President Joe Biden's National Security Adviser. TIME had this to say about Sullivan:

Sullivan was the reliable point of contact between the White House and Clinton’s 7th floor even when other White House and State staffers were at each others’ throats. Losing him to Biden’s office closes one line of influence to the White House for Kerry.

It's also been widely reported that when Susan Rice lied on those five Sunday talk shows, she undermined what Libyan president Mohammed al-Magariaf, who had appeared on one of those shows (CBS' Face the Nation) shortly before her and said the attacks were 'pre-planned'.

Consider that when the Benghazi attacks occurred, al-Magariaf had only been in office for about one month. While reports suggest that relations between the newly elected Libyan president and the Muslim Brotherhood were friendly, he was not the group's choice. In fact, the Brotherhood appears to have been quite disappointed at the time because its main interest was in who took the Prime Minister slot. The Brotherhood apparently very much wanted Awad Barasi as the PM.

Via the Libya Herald in an article from last August:

…it would not be wrong to interpret Magarief’s victory as a another significant setback for the Muslim Brotherhood’s Justice and Construction party (J and C).

Quite apart from misleading headlines that Magarief is ‘pro-Islamist’ (of which more later), the simple fact is that the main prize desired by the Islamists in this contest was always the prime minister, not the speaker, and they contemplated significant compromises over who should be selected for the latter post in order to maximize the chances of getting their choice for the former.

As a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, the choice of the J and C and their allies for prime minister was, and remains, Barasi.

While Barasi did not become the PM of Libya, he is currently the Second Deputy Prime Minister there. Interestingly, at the time of the Benghazi attacks, the matter of who would be Libya's PM was very much in a state of flux and up for grabs.

Currently, the PM of Libya is a guy named Ali Zeidan who defeated the Muslim Brotherhood's preferred candidate about one month following the Benghazi attacks.

Again, let's get back to the desire for shared outcomes if not shared motives. As a representative of the Muslim Brotherhood and a Muslim Sisterhood leader, didn't Huma's mother represent an entity that would have wanted to undermine the Libyan president?

The following is a list of names of former / current State Department employees that are implicated to varying degrees in what happened in Benghazi, both before and after the 9/11/12 attacks:

Hillary Clinton: Secretary of State
Victoria Nuland: State Department spokesman
Elizabeth (Beth) Jones: Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs
Cheryl Mills: Chief of Staff to Hillary Clinton
Jake Sullivan: Deputy Chief of Staff to Hillary Clinton
Bill Burns: Deputy Secretary of State
Patrick Kennedy: Under Secretary of State for Management
Eric Boswell: Asst Secretary of State for Diplomatic security
Charlene Lamb: Deputy Asst Secretary for Embassy security

So far, this list does not include the name Huma Abedin.

Should it?

DOD Comes to defense of Fort Hood Jihadist receiving fair trial over giving Purple Hearts to victims

This new development further demonstrates at least two realities. First, when the United States was hit on 9/11/01, declaring war on "terror" instead of on the actual enemy, was a grave mistake. Second, that mistake is being grossly exploited with legalese and political correctness, this time coming from the Department of Defense (DOD).

The primary objective of the Federal government - and the DOD by extension - is to defend the United States "against all enemies, foreign and domestic". It's exceedingly ironic that the DOD would stake out a position that does the opposite by overtly denying a self-evident truth while slapping the Fort Hood survivors in the collective face.

If we had declared war on the actual enemy after 9/11 (any and all Muslim Brotherhood groups or governments / entities that fund / support those groups), perhaps the DOD would have long ago admitted that Nidal Malik Hasan committed an act of war on the U.S.

Before murdering innocent people, Hasan shouted 'Allahu Akbar', just like the 9/11 terrorists did from inside cockpits. Belonging to the religion of Islam is another common trait Hasan shares with those hijackers. It was further learned that while al-Awlaki had ties to Hasan, he also had extensive ties to the 9/11 hijackers.

In hindsight the DOD's treatment of al-Awlaki several months after 9/11, in the form of a plush luncheon served as a foreshadowing of how it has handled Hasan, who was inspired by al-Awlaki.

Via Fox News:

Legislation that would award the injured from the 2009 Fort Hood shooting the Purple Heart would adversely affect the trial of Maj. Nidal Hasan by labeling the attack terrorism, according to a Defense Department document obtained by Fox News. 

The document comes following calls from survivors and their families for the military honor, because they say Fort Hood was turned into a battlefield when Hasan opened fire during the November 2009 attack. Fox News is told that the DOD “position paper” is being circulated specifically in response to the proposed legislation.

Click Here to read the Position Paper referenced above.

Here are some excerpts:

The DoD position is the Purple Heart is awarded to Service members who are killed, or wounded and require treatment by a medical officer, in action against the enemy of the United States; as the result of an act of any hostile foreign force; or as the result of an international terrorist attack against the United States. Adhering to the criterion for award of the Purple Heart is essential to preserve the integrity of the award. To do otherwise could irrevocably alter the fundamental character of this time-honored decoration.

Again, had an actual enemy been identified after 9/11, Hasan would have easily been identified as one of its agents. After all, his own business card confirmed it. It's also beyond egregious to suggest that awarding Purple Hearts to soldiers who were attacked by an enemy of the United States damages the integrity of the award is another slap in the face to Hasan's victims.

Soon thereafter...

The proposed bill alters the long established Purple Heart award criterion contained in Executive Order 11016.

This is perhaps the clearest example of why it was wrong for the George W. Bush administration to identify "terror" as the enemy. A consequence of that decision is that our own soldiers, who are wounded or killed by a member of the enemy don't qualify for Purple Hearts.

As for the criteria for being awarded the Purple Heart...

The criteria have since been modified to include those wounded or killed as the result of being held as a prisoner of war or from an international terrorist attack as determined by the Secretary of the department concerned. This “international” distinction is important because US military personnel are organized, trained and equipped to combat foreign – not domestic – forces or threats.

Uh, what if the unidentified foreign enemy makes it onto U.S. soil and infiltrates our largest Army post? Oh, yeah, that's right. The enemy is unidentified so there's no need to train or equip military personnel for such threats. Besides, there's no Purple Heart for doing so anyway.

Besides, was that an admission by the DOD that our military is not trained or equipped to defend the homeland against attack from within?

Now, how about the reason why the DOD doesn't want Hasan's victims to be awarded Purple Hearts?

The Army objects to section 552 because it would undermine the prosecution of Major Nidal Hasan by materially and directly compromising Major Hasan’s ability to receive a fair trial. This provision will be viewed as setting the stage for a formal declaration that Major Hasan is a terrorist, on what is now the eve of trial.

The murder of 14 and injuring of 32 happened almost three and a half years ago and we're still on "the eve of the trial"?

What more evidence is needed to demonstrate that our response to 9/11 was bungled? The (unidentified) enemy of the U.S. (Hasan) must have a fair trial and in order for that to happen, our soldiers (his victims) must be denied the honor of a Purple Heart?!

The DOD torpedoes its own credibility at the end of the document:

The Government has vigilantly tended to the needs of the victims and their families since the tragic events of November 5, 2009. The Government – as much if not more than other interested parties – very much desires emotional closure for victims and families. Purple Heart legislation, in advance of a finding of guilt or an acquittal, is not the answer to address these most sensitive concerns.

That excerpt directly contradicts the sentiment of one of Hasan's victims.

Via ABC News:

In a report that aired on "World News with Diane Sawyer" and "Nightline," former police sergeant Kimberly Munley, who helped stop the Ft. Hood shooting, said that President Obama broke the promise he made to her that the victims would be well taken care of. 

"Betrayed is a good word," said Munley, who sat next to First Lady Michelle Obama at the 2010 State of the Union address. "Not to the least little bit have the victims been taken care of … In fact, they've been neglected."

There was no comment from the White House about Munley's allegations.
So who's telling the truth, DOD or Munley?

I'll take Munley, hands down.

About that CNN Hit Piece on Michele Bachmann...

First of all, that CNN in general - Anderson Cooper in particular - is given any credibility is amazing in itself. CNN has a history of featuring dishonest flacks and news stories. Consider what Drew Griffin did to Walid Shoebat and Sarah Palin or what Sara Sidner reported from Gaza, or the Pallywood news footage that featured a large man faking an injury that Cooper was busted airing on his program and had to retract.

In the case of Sidner, she featured a news story that left viewers to believe that a Palestinian boy was killed by Israeli rocket fire. When it became apparent the boy had to have been killed by an errant Palestinian rocket, CNN's Don Lemon issued a pseudo-retraction right before he went to... wait for it... Sara Sidner for an update.

At about the same time, Cooper had to issue a retraction for airing the footage of the large man faking an injury. It's good he did so but c'mon, Palestinians staging scenes and passing it off as news is incredibly pervasive and none of it should be trusted, which would seem to indicate the retraction was issued only because the error was so egregiously obvious.

This brings us to the hit piece on Michele Bachmann this week by Cooper and Dana Bash, which focused on aspects of Bachmann's CPAC speech that included examples of Barack Obama's extravagant lifestyle as President. Cooper's report began with a short clip of Bachmann demanding answers to the attacks in Benghazi, after which Cooper said CNN has been critical of Benghazi and then began to move on to the small portion of Bachmann's speech about lavish White House spending.

The items of interest for Cooper were Bachmann's reference to a book that charged Obama as being the $1.4 Billion president. Examples provided were five chefs on Air Force One, two projectionists at the White House, and someone being paid to walk BO the dog. Cooper then proceeded to introduce reporter Dana Bash, who was almost apoplectic that she had to chase Bachmann down a hallway to ask her about the Congresswoman's statements during the speech.

Roger Aronoff does a good job of dismantling the report by Cooper and Bash and exposes it for what it is - a hit piece. It's quite apparent after reading it that Bachmann's words were twisted to intentionally smear. By airing a clip of Bachmann's comments on Benghazi and then saying CNN has been critical of the handling of Benghazi, Cooper asks viewers to accept the premise that he is balanced, objective, and without an agenda.

The premise is faulty. Whatever criticism CNN has had for Benghazi, it's been nowhere near interested enough in getting to the truth and unless I've missed something, I don't recall Bash chasing / badgering any administration official for answers, though I could be wrong. In any event, the attention given to a small part of a CPAC speech by a congresswoman could have been better spent doggedly pursuing answers to Benghazi, hey Dana?

The larger picture that CNN is obviously missing is the runaway spending, a $17 Trillion debt, and annual deficits the likes of which we've never seen. Focusing exclusively on Bachmann's examples without seeming to care about those larger issues is also quite revealing. In fact, instead of doing so, perhaps Cooper could do his job and investigate why there IS so much spending and where all the money is going?

At the 5:00 mark, Cooper also makes reference to the Huma Abedin controversy, saying:

"Congresswoman Bachmann has made other claims that simply do not stand up as well, namely that Huma Abedin, a top adviser to then Secretary of State Clinton, may be under the sway of the Muslim Brotherhood. That allegation was found factually groundless, drew sharp criticism at the time from both sides of the aisle..."

Hey Anderson, how would you know? You never addressed the facts about Abedin's familial background and actually aired news reports that defended her without exploring any of those facts. Ironically, while Cooper was dismissing Abedin's connection to the Brotherhood, he aired B-roll of her actually talking to the president of the Muslim Brotherhood's group in America - Mohamed Magid of the ISNA - at the 5:19 mark (though Magid not seen in the portion of the video that was aired during Cooper's report).

As for the Bash-chasing-Bachmann footage that was shown shortly thereafter, Cooper and Bash were both amazed that Bachmann turned the question about Obama having a "dog walker" back on Bash, when it was Bachmann who brought it up. Actually, as Aronoff points out, Bachmann never said Obama pays for a "dog walker", only that someone is paid to walk it, which is true.

A central theme of the Tea Party that was formed in early 2009 was that its members were willing to defend neither Obama nor his predecessor, George W. Bush when it came to spending. Hindsight is 20/20 but Bachmann could have responded to Bash by reinforcing this sentiment, saying that both administrations have been responsible for our monstrous debt, though it can't be denied that Obama shifted the debt-mobile into overdrive. Bash and Cooper wanted to contrast the money spent on the Obama presidency with that of the Bush presidency.

The fact is that both were (and are) out of control. If only Cooper was as interested in that self-evident truth as he is in smearing a congresswoman who desperately wants to do something about it.

If CNN is effective at anything, it's smearing those it wants to marginalize and running interference for those it wants to protect.

Cenk Uygur's Conundrum

It seems the former MSNBC host is in a 'heads I win, tails you lose' situation.

Will Al Jazeera keep Muslim Apostate after Current TV sale?

Why are CAIR, Code Pink, Van Jones and Cenk Uygur all supporting Rand Paul?

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) made big headlines this week in a showdown with the Obama administration over the latter's refusal to unequivocally state that it would not use armed drones to kill Americans on American soil who posed no imminent threat to the country. Paul was relegated to eating candy bars during his twelve-plus hour filibuster while establishment types like Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) were dining with Barack Obama.

The conservative base ate it up. Finally, the new guard was doing what the old guard never seemed interested in doing; Paul was taking Obama on while standing on principle and the establishment didn't like it one bit. McCain referred to the Senator from Kentucky as well as Senator Ted Cruz as 'wacko birds'.

However, in addition to winning over conservatives and libertarians, Paul has garnered the support of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim Brotherhood front in America; Turkish Current TV (Al Jazeera) host Cenk Uygur; former Obama Green Jobs czar Van Jones, who is a fellow at the Center for American Progress (CAP) - a George Soros entity; and Code Pink, a far left group who was behind the 2010 Gaza flotilla.

CAIR's Executive Director - Nihad Awad - said the following in a press release:

"We welcome Senator Paul's efforts to press for a firm answer as to whether drones may legally be used to kill American citizens on U.S. soil. Unfortunately, the initial administration response to that question left room for doubt. We acknowledge today's statement by Attorney General Holder and hope that it represents a clear and unequivocal rejection of that obviously unconstitutional authority."

Uygur, long recognized as a far left commentator who left MSNBC to work at Current TV, said the following in reference to Paul's filibuster:

“I don’t care what his (Paul's) opinions on other things are — you can call him anything you like, but here he happens to be a constitutional hero.”

Uygur's employer - Current TV - was recently sold to Al Jazeera, another arm of the Muslim Brotherhood.

How about Van Jones? Here is a guy who worked very closely with the inner circles inside the Obama administration when he was the Green Jobs czar. Jones resigned in 2009 amidst a string of scandalous revelations about his past, which included his signature appearing on a 9/11 Truth document. When he left the administration, he became a senior fellow at CAP, an entity TIME Magazine referred to as the Obama administration's "idea factory".

Here is what Jones had to say about the Rand Paul filibuster:

"Well let me just say, I might shock a lot of people as somebody, you know I love this president and I respect this president, Rand Paul was a hero yesterday, and what I've been hearing is a lot of shame from liberals and progressives who felt like geez, we should be up there sticking up for civil liberties and we should be the ones asking those tough questions."

As for Soros, he supported the 'Arab Spring' and has some very distinct ties to the Muslim Brotherhood himself. This would at least theoretically explain why both Jones and CAIR are on the same page here.

Then, of course, there is Code Pink's Medea Benjamin, who said of Paul:

"...compared to the Democratic senators who have, with few exceptions, remained either silent or support of President Obama's killer drones, Rand made a heroic stand. In gratitude, progressives should "Stand with Rand."

In 2010, Benjamin worked with Obama friends Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn - through the Free Gaza Movement - to coordinate the Gaza flotilla that attempted to break the Israeli blockade. This was a pro-Hamas movement as well; Hamas is the Muslim Brotherhood.

There are two traits we've come to associate with left-wing groups. One is that when they want to collectively push a narrative, there's a cross-polination of shared words embedded in that narrative that supposedly independent groups all use. Note that in the examples above, Jones, Uygur, and Benjamin all refer to Paul as being a 'hero'. The second trait is that leftists - especially those in positions of prominence - don't break ranks. When Van Jones outwardly expresses a view that is in support of someone who is in direct opposition to Obama on a particular issue, it's both noteworthy and curious.

Conservatives are always talking about how they can't trust leftists. Now, all of sudden, because the leftists are agreeing with a conservative / libertarian Senator's stand against the Republican establishment, we're to take them at their word? Why isn't it possible that these leftists see an opportunity to further divide the Republican Party?

Remember, one of Saul Alinsky's rules states, in part:

Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose.

This is not meant to say that Paul is wrong and the likes of Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) are right. In actuality, on balance, Paul is more right than they are.

McCain and Graham are an interestingly bizarre pair. Both have supported - and continue to support - arming Muslim Brotherhood rebels to fight dictators. McCain called such Libyan rebels his 'heroes' while backing NATO's efforts to oust Gadhafi. Both Senators have continued to back support for the Syrian rebels as well.

So, McCain and Graham seek to empower the Muslim Brotherhood abroad but want more latitude to attach them domestically. Conversely, Paul rightfully wants to stop funding the likes of Egypt's Mohammed Morsi and the Syrian rebels while at the same time, he gains the support of Nihad Awad, the head of a Muslim Brotherhood group in America.

In an interview with Fox's Megyn Kelly, Paul said the following about McCain and Graham:

They think the whole world is a battlefield, including America, and that the 'laws' of war should apply. The laws of war don't involve due process.

In reality, the whole world IS A BATTLEFIELD in the eyes of the Muslim Brotherhood, which consists of CAIR, Hamas, and Al Qaeda. The problem for the likes of Paul, McCain, and Graham is that they do not understand that America is also a political battlefield in the eyes of the Muslim Brotherhood groups here.

Again, this goes back to one very simple reality; The United States did not sufficiently identify its enemy after 9/11 (all Muslim Brotherhood groups in America and Saudi Arabia by extension). As a result and as a nation, we are confused about how best to confront that enemy almost twelve years later.

Until then, internecine battles like this one will continue.

Video: Authors of 'Benghazi: The Definitive Report'

Former Green Beret Jack Murphy and Former Navy SEAL Brandon Webb have co-authored a book that makes some explosive charges about Barack Obama's nominee for CIA Director, John Brennan. Perhaps the most explosive is that Brennan was ordering weapons raids in Libya after the fall of Gadhafi and that he did so without the knowledge of then CIA Director David Petraeus or Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

According to the Daily Mail, Webb was the best friend of Glen Doherty, one of the two Navy SEALs who was murdered at the CIA Annex on September 11th.

Webb and Murphy appeared on Fox and Friends to discuss their charges and connect some very important dots.

Via Breitbart:



For more analysis of what these charges could mean, go here, here, here, and here.

'Tis the Season for Treason

In a video, Bill Whittle explained the difference between a 'traitor' and a 'turncoat'. The former describes an individual who actively fights against his nation because he/she opposes it based on ideology, principles, or some agenda. The latter describes an individual who changes sides because the enemy is winning. In the case of America's most notorious traitor - Benedict Arnold - one could argue that he was both. At one point, he fought courageously for the colonists but several things happened.

Arnold married the daughter of a British sympathizer, which seemed to open the door for his providing secrets to the enemy. It was the discovery of his subsequent dealings with a British Major named John Andre' that revealed Arnold's treasonous behavior, which included the weakening of West Point's defenses. There are some indications that he had a problem with aligning with the French as well as with those who opposed the Protestant religion, though this may have involved a bit of rationalization after it became clear who he was.

Check this out from Biography.com:

Arnold gained access to even more sensitive information when he assumed command of West Point, in August of 1780. He began systematically weakening the fort’s defenses, refusing to order necessary repairs and draining its supplies. At the same time, Arnold began transferring his assets from Connecticut to England.

Arnold and André met in person on September 21, to discuss the operation. Several days later, André was captured. Papers exposing the West Point siege plot were found and sent to George Washington, revealing Arnold’s role.

A short time later, after Arnold's mask had been removed and he was free to convey his bitterness, he wrote a letter to the colonists in 1780, which said in part:

In the firm persuasion, therefore, that the private judgement of an individual citizen of this country is as free from all conventional restraints, since as before the insidious offers of France, I preferred those from Great Britain; thinking it infinitely wiser and safer to cast my confidence upon her justice and generosity, than to trust a monarchy too feeble to establish your independency, so perilous to her distant dominions; the enemy of the Protestant faith, and fraudulently avowing an affection for the liberties of mankind, while she holds her native sons in vassalage and chains.

There it is right there. Arnold himself admitted he thought it was SAFER to align with the British. Did self-preservation trump righteousness? Perhaps that's where the truth lies. That excerpt indicates that he thought Great Britain was destined to win and the colonists couldn't achieve their desire to be free.

There is a distinct difference between what happened when Arnold's activities became known by the colonists and activities of politicians in the 21st century became known to Americans. That difference is that similar behavior seems to be met with apathy on the part of modern day colonists - the American citizens.

In this comparative metaphor, Arnold has multiple manifestations in the present day but because of the colonists' apathy - as well as the unwillingness of leading politicians who hold powerful positions - these 'Arnolds' have either been caught red-handed or have relationships with individuals on par with Andre'. Yet, unlike Arnold, individuals like Chris Christie, who has taken a man with distinct ties to Hamas as his friend; Hillary Clinton, whose close adviser has irrefutable ties to the Muslim Brotherhood; Dick Durbin, who has ingratiated himself to the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR); John Brennan, who seemed quite comfortable while speaking to representatives from several Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups at New York University.

These are just a few of several examples but when Benedict Arnold learned that he had been exposed, he fled. Conversely, Christie is being considered as a presidential candidate in 2016, ditto Hillary Clinton. Durbin is still a senior U.S. Senator and Brennan is the president's nominee for CIA Director.

That is an indictment of Senators and Congressmen who know better and who think it's "SAFER" to avoid the battle.

Republican leadership today is more interested in ignoring these red flags. In fact, when one U.S. Congressmen - Michele Bachmann - made public her concerns about Abedin, the Speaker of the House - the most powerful Republican in office - suggested that Bachmann's questions were 'pretty dangerous'.

Why?

Consider French General Henri-Philippe Petain, who reached hero status after WWI. While in his 80's, France turned to him again when his nation ran out of options to fight the Nazis. What happened is a case study in the origins of why the term 'turncoat' was invented. Petain essentially did the Nazis bidding as a figurehead in WWII.

Via First World War:

In 1940, at the age of 83, he headed the Vichy government of France during the Second World War, from 11 July 1940 until 20 August 1944. Petain established a Fascist-oriented government that became notorious for its collaboration with the Third Reich. Ruling with German approval, Petain's government passed anti-Semitic laws, rounding up French, Spanish and Eastern European Jews for deportation to German concentration camps.

For his collaboration he was sentenced to death for treason following the war, on 15 August 1944, a sentence that was commuted to life imprisonment by Charles de Gaulle, who had served as a junior officer in Petain's regiment at Charleron in August 1914.

Petain didn't act as an arm of the Nazis because he agreed with them ideologically. He did so in the interest of self-preservation. To quote Benedict Arnold, Petain likely thought it was "SAFER" to aid Hitler's forces than it was to fight against them.

Is that where far too many leaders of the United States are today?

If so, God help us if they believe not confronting the likes of Clinton, Christie, Durbin, and Brennan is "SAFER" than the alternative because it isn't.

In fact, it's the most dangerous course and while there may be a distinction between a 'traitor' and a 'turncoat' based on motive, there is little to no difference when it comes to where the actions of each leads.

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.

Report: Obama's Nominee for CIA Director converted to Islam

During a radio interview with Tom Trento of the United West, former FBI Agent John Guandolo made the claim that he knows people who were present when Barack Obama's nominee for CIA Director - John Brennan - converted to Islam when Brennan was a station chief in Saudi Arabia in the 1990's. If true, it might help to explain Brennan's response to a question at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) last year.

Last summer, letters signed by five congressmen, to include Michele Bachmann, were sent to five various Inspectors General. The intent of the letters was to raise concerns about the infiltration of the U.S. Government by the Muslim Brotherhood. Those who objected the most to the letters are the ones who avoided the facts altogether.

That leads to the appearance of Brennan at CFR last August, when the controversy surrounding the contents of Bachmann's letters was at its peak. If Guandolo is right, that Brennan was turned by the Muslim Brotherhood, it would mean that Obama's counterterrorism adviser is one of the people Bachmann, et. al. was unknowingly concerned about. On that note, pay attention to Brennan's reaction to a question about the concerns of those congressmen.

If Guandolo is right, Brennan's reaction is exactly the type of reaction one would expect. He mocked the congressmen and suggested the question be asked of them, not him. What is truly amazing is that Brennan actually speaks Arabic and displayed no concern whatsoever about infiltration.

Via Huffington Post:

Audio: Today's Podcast

On today's program...

* ATF's latest flawed gun scandal... in MIlwaukee
* How's that Arab Spring thing going? Guy who helped spearhead revolution in Egypt doesn't like the result
* Texas Muslim State Capitol day in Austin

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

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

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

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

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

Let's get back to Maher for a moment.

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps those leaders should start reading their Bibles.

Video: Greta interviews Hillary Clinton about Middle East / Benghazi

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

Commentary after the video:



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

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

Hillary's response?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.) Should we go back to Benghazi?

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

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



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

Al Jazeera's Doublespeak

A common refrain we here from those who defend Al Jazeera's purchase of Current TV is that over the last decade, it is an entity that has decided it wants to become a legitimate news organization and that Al Jazeera English is nothing like Al Jazeera Arabic. Is that not the recipe for doublespeak, where Islamists say one thing in English but something else completely different in Arabic?

Have we learned nothing from Yasser Arafat and Feisal Abdul Rauf?

In applying this test to Al Jazeera, consider two examples taken from Al Jazeera Arabic. One is Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader, Yusuf Al Qaradawi. The other is the cousin of Barack Hussein Obama, Musa Ismail Obama.

Yusuf Al Qaradawi
Perhaps the most prominent Muslim Brotherhood cleric, Qaradawi had been jailed in Egypt three times for his ties to the radical Islamic group. He ultimately fled to Qatar in 1961 and has been based there ever since. Something else that is based in Qatar is Al Jazeera, which is owned by the government there. As if that isn't disconcerting enough, Qaradawi has his own show on the network. Ironically, Qaradawi is banned from the United States, though the network that airs his program, which is seen by millions of people, will now have a base in New York, 9/11's ground zero.

For those who might be willing to believe that Al Jazeera had already completed its transformation into a legitimate news outlet by 2009, here is Qaradawi on Al Jazeera from that year (h/t Daily Caller):



That's right, Qaradawi has expressed praise for Hitler. He's consistently done so on Al Jazeera, which has given him his own show. How about this excerpt from one of his speeches that aired on the network that aired his show and is owned by the government which continues to provide him a platform:

"Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the [Jews] people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them - even though they exaggerated this issue - he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hands of the believers."

In 2002, Al Jazeera aired an interview with David Duke and featured him as a credible western speaker who made the claim that the Mossad knew about 9/11 in advance and warned the Jews. If one is to believe that Al Jazeera changed its stripes since then, how does one explain Qaradawi's rhetoric as recently as 2009 being featured prominently on the network?

This would be akin to Al Gore selling his network to an entity that gives the KKK's grand kleagle his own show as part of its offering.

Musa Ismail Obama
In 2011, Barack Obama's cousin Musa was interviewed - in Arabic - on Al Jazeera. During that interview, Musa delivered several bombshells. One of them involved the Mama Sarah Children Foundation, which was named after Barack's step-Grandmother. Ostensibly, the intention of the foundation was to provide for underprivileged children.

However, in his interview with Al Jazeera, Musa explained that contributions, much of which comes from the United States, is used to send Kenyan students to Saudi Arabian schools to be educated in Wahhabism.

Check out this excerpt from Walid's piece on the Obamas' Wahhabist Fundraising Empire:

As a result of the flood of students into the Wahhabi Sharia universities in Saudi Arabia, the interviewer then asks regarding the excess: “So you are opening an avenue in other universities?” Musa then explains he had to send the excess to nearby Doha in Qatar, where he visited and arranged everything. When Al-Jazeera asked, “Do all these scholarships involve studying Arabic and Sharia?” Musa explained, “Some of those do not involve Sharia, like medicine or engineering.” Al-Jazeera then asks, “…but the majority involves what?” Musa answers: “Uuuhhh…. The majority of course is Sharia schools,” adding, “because my connection to the institutions is with Sharia schools.”

This necessarily means that an entity owned by the government of Qatar interviewed someone who claimed that Qatar was home to students who were being educated in the most virulent strain of Islam - Wahhabism - under the false pretense that the money contributed to the foundation responsible for sending those students to Qatar, was being used for humanitarian purposes.

Is it not a fair question to ask how many contributors had no intention to contribute to giving students a Wahhabist education? If they didn't know, they were defrauded. If fraud took place, Al Jazeera looked the other way, at best. Did Catholic Relief Services (CRS) know who it was partnering with when it did so with the Mama Sara Foundation?

Isn't all of this a glaring symptom of doublespeak? Didn't Ground Zero mosque Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf do this when he spoke peace and tolerance to English audiences but said the following to Arabic audiences when advising them how to treat westerners:

“Deal with them as one courts a pretty girl he wants to date; stop thinking like a typical Muslim. Then you can engage.”

The truth is that Al Jazeera America (the proposed name for what used to be Current TV) is an extension of Al Jazeera, which is an extension of the Qatari government, which owns the Arabic network. Essentially, this makes Qatar ground zero for Al Jazeera.

In reality, the possibility that Al Jazeera hasn't changed at all since its days in the months and early years after 9/11/01 is very real.

Slavery is coming back... to Egypt

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

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

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

Via the AP:

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

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

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

Via the AP:

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

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

Yet, 96% of blacks support Obama.

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.

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

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

Via Der Spiegel:

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

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

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

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

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

Via Neil Munroe at the Daily Caller:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For a Genius, Condoleezza Rice not making much sense

She served for four years as George W. Bush's National Security Advisor, another four as his Secretary of State; she had been Provost at Stanford, and is an extremely accomplished pianist. By all accounts, Condoleezza Rice is widely accepted as a genius.

So why on earth is she advocating for what would inevitably lead to Muslim Brotherhood control of Syria? After reading her recent op-ed in the Washington Post, there really is no gray area about where she stands, though as a seasoned diplomat, she does her level best to massage her message. Her position is that Assad must fall and Syria must not be allowed to fall into the hands of Iranian control.

Via WaPo:

The fragile state structure of the Middle East has been held together for decades by monarchs and dictators. But as the desire for freedom has spread from Tunis to Cairo to Damascus, authoritarians have lost their grip. The danger now is that the artificial states could fly apart.

What Rice avoids saying is breathtaking. Whatever desire there is for freedom in the Middle East is being snuffed out by new, religious tyrants who are filling the vacuum left by those "monarchs" and "dictators". Simply put, in every country where the 'Arab Spring' has been successful at removing dictators, things have gotten much worse. Egypt's new Muslim Brotherhood leader is consolidating power and that country is increasingly on the brink of civil war; Libya may have elected a secular government but make no mistake; al-Qaeda is calling the shots. Yemen, Tunisia, et. al. are all seeing similar outcomes.

Therefore, why would Rice think Syria would be any different?

Perhaps the answer lies in the very next paragraph:

In Iraq, after overthrowing Saddam Hussein, the United States hoped that a fledging multi-ethnic, multi-confessional democracy could do what authoritarians could not: give all of these groups a stake in a common future. To an extent it has, with elections repeatedly producing inclusive governments. But the institutions are young and fragile, and they are groaning under the weight of the region’s broader sectarian explosion. The conflict in Syria is pushing Iraq and others to the breaking point. At the same time, U.S. disengagement has tempted Iraqi politicians to move toward sectarian allies for survival. If Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki cannot count on the Americans, he will take no risks with Tehran.

Note how Rice comes precariously close to admitting that going into Iraq was a mistake but qualifies it by implying that more time is needed. The notion that the Syrian conflict is pushing Iraq to the "breaking point" is a bit of an exercise in denial. Make no mistake; Iran has all but annexed Iraq and for Rice to assert anything to the contrary presupposes that the Bush strategy still has a chance. It was doomed to failure when the foundation for the new Iraqi constitution was Sharia law; it was a soft surrender.

As Rice points out, Iraq is 65% Shiite; so is al-Maliki Shiite. Counting on Americans would have involved a Constitution that did not have Sharia law. Assuming that al-Maliki was ever interested in true freedom in Iraq, such interest was snuffed out at that point because it meant the Americans could not be counted on.

Rice runs into another problem. Note I did say she only came "precariously close" to admitting failure. Opining that the United States should not support the ouster of Assad would be an admission of failure in Iraq and inconsistent with the broader strategy of her boss, because it would mean that the perceived liberation of people who are ruled by a dictator can lead to greater enslavement, which it has in Iraq, Gaza, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, et. al. Rice almost has to support Assad's overthrow at this point. Advocating the opposite would torpedo the Bush doctrine of democratization in the Middle East.

Comparing Iran to Karl Marx seems to be an attempt - in part - to liken the former to the United States' cold war nemesis. Take note of her reference to a "theocratic flag" and where it flies:

Today’s Karl Marx is Iran. It envisions the spread of its influence among Shiites, uniting them under the theocratic flag of Tehran — destroying the integrity of Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Lebanon. Iran uses terrorist groups, Hezbollah and the Shiite militias in southern Iraq to do its bidding. Syria is the linchpin, the bridge into the Arab Middle East. Tehran no longer hides the fact that its security forces are working in Syria to prop up Assad. In this context, Tehran’s sprint toward a nuclear weapon is a problem not just for Israel but the region as a whole.

Few would argue that there are easy answers in the Middle East but Rice seems to be falling into the same trap that so many westerners do. While being rightfully concerned about Iran, there is this inexplicable underestimation of Turkey, which continues to be wrongly viewed as an ally of the West. In reality, Turkey has been making more gains than Iran, in many ways. With every Muslim Brotherhood victory, Turkey is secretly emboldened and its lustful eye for a reestablished Ottoman empire waters a little more with increased anticipatory desire.

While Rice rightfully bemoans the Shia's "theocratic flag of Tehran", she ignores the "theocratic flag" that is being planted all over the Middle East as Turkey quietly sees those flags as representing a resurrected empire in the near future.

Rice continues...

In recent days, France, Britain and Turkey have stepped into the diplomatic vacuum to recognize a newly formed opposition that is broadly representative of all Syrians. The United States should follow their lead and then vet and arm the unified group with defensive weapons on the condition that it pursues an inclusive post-Assad framework. The United States and its allies should also consider establishing a no-fly zone to protect the innocent. America’s weight and influence are needed. Leaving this to regional powers, whose interests are not identical to ours, will only exacerbate the deepening sectarianism.

Certainly there are risks. After more than a year of brutal conflict, the most extreme elements of the opposition — including al-Qaeda — have been empowered. Civil wars tend to strengthen the worst forces. The overthrow of Assad could indeed bring these dangerous groups to power.

But the breakdown of the Middle East state system is a graver risk. Iran will win, our allies will lose, and for decades the region’s misery and violence will make today’s chaos look tame.

It is simply breathtaking to consider that someone of Rice's intellect does not understand the Islamist nature and goals of Turkey's leadership. She then talks about aligning with them and arming the Syrian rebels but under the condition that there is a post-Assad framework and that the rebels who are armed can be trusted (because that's worked out so well to this point).

Then, she demonstrates an unbelievable amount of naiveté relative to history, both old and recent, when she says that the breakdown of the Middle East state system is a graver risk than the Muslim Brotherhood groups ultimately taking control of Syria. If she was truly interested in preserving the "state system", Assad is the better option.

Does she not know that it is Turkey which desires the dissolution of every nation that has fallen to the Brotherhood?  That would also include Syria if Assad falls.

Rice's former boss - George W. Bush - communicated a similar embrace of the 'Arab Spring' in an op-ed he wrote for the Wall Street Journal last May.

For Rice or Bush to admit the truth would require them to admit failure, which they're obviously not willing to do.

Unfortunately, not doing so smacks of both pride an foolishness.