Linda Sarsour, the radical Muslim activist who helped organize the national Woman’s March this past Saturday, is a ‘nasty’ interloper hoping to spread the oppression of Sharia Law to American women. In her speech, she told the crowd, Muslims have been victimized and are suffering under American government oppression.
How mind-bendingly ludicrous. Logically, Sarsour should be there to criticize Islam which treats girls and women as non-human slaves with absolutely no rights. Instead, her speech was anti-American, anti-Trump and anti-Israel which I suspect was the whole agenda behind the well-organized, well-funded marches across the country.
Sarsour, the executive director of the Arab American Association of New York(AAANY), set up shop selling the myth of Islamophobia soon after 9/11. She is a hijab-wearing pro-Hamas Islamic supremacist with an in-your-face attitude. In 2004, she admitted in a Columbia University publication that her brother-in-law was serving a 12-year sentence in Israel after being accused of Hamas-related activities. Sarsour also stated she herself had been questioned by authorities in the U.S. and that her Palestinian husband, who had been here for seven years, faced deportation hearings. No wonder she was honored by the Obama White House as a “champion of change.”
In a 2008 interview with Tyra Banks about people’s reaction to traditional Muslim clothing, Sarsour responded:
I’m so sick and tired of the ignorance in this country, the fear…If you’re afraid some Muslim guy’s going to bomb the plane, take the damn bus.(video)
Like her infidel sisters at the DC March, Sarsour likes using the ‘F’ word. In her 2011 YouTube performance of the “Hijabi Monologues, ” Sarsour takes a page out of Al Sharpton’s playbook. She claims she suffered all kinds of anti-Muslim abuse growing up in Brooklyn. It makes her “angry and tired” when people ask her where she’s from.
“Do you not see me?… I’m tired…My name is Linda…F**k you, what the f**k is your problem asshole, where the f**k are you from?”
At 17, Sarsour wed in an arranged marriage but this kind of anti-feminist Muslim patriarchal oppression of women hearkening back to the 7th century doesn’t seem to present any problem for the marchers. Men marrying little girls, genital mutilation, stoning, and denial of human rights are simply ‘cultural differences.’ For the dimwitted Madonnas and Judds out there, Sarsour represents diversity, not subversive assimilation into a feminist movement for the express purpose of enslaving them under Sharia as well.
Sarsour’s ties to far-left groups and individuals, in addition to terrorist organizations, helps her attract all sorts of radicals to her cause. She hangs out with communist Harry Belafonte, referring to him as Mr. B, Black Lives Matter activists, Mustafa Abdullah, an organizer with the St. Louis chapter of the ACLU and others. Her connections enabled Sarsour to be effective in helping to halt NYPD’s surveillance of mosques. Her latest act, getting hundreds of thousands of stupid American females to show up with vagina hats to protest a new President who promises to crack down on Islamic radicals like herself. At the same time she was working the crowd, tying repressive hijabs on their heads.
It was quite a victory for the America-hating Sarsour.
Gen. Tlass, 53, son of the eminent Gen. Mustafa Tlass, defense minister under President Hafez Assad, was awarded high honors by his son Bashar as one of his closest friends. Although appointed commander of the prestigious 104thBrigade in the Syrian Republican Guard, Manas chose to defect and flee the country in 2012, not long after the outbreak of the Syrian uprising.
Iran threatens to be one of the main obstacles to any reduction in Assad’s powers. For Tehran, he stands as a bulwark against the expulsion of its own and Hizballah forces from the country. As long as he is in charge, Iran will have the use of a land bridge to Lebanon and its proxy, Hizballah, via Iraq and Syria.
**************
Syrian government and rebel groups launch a fresh peace conference in the Kazakh capital of Astana Monday, Jan.23 in freezing temperatures of minus 20 Centigrade. Although the event is jointly sponsored by Russia, Turkey and Iran, Moscow is the real power-broker.
DEBKAfile’s intelligence sources reveal that the delegations on both sides of the table were caught off-balance by the arrival of Bashar Assad’s former close friend, Gen. Manas Tlass, whom Russia flew in from his place of exile in a Gulf emirate to a prominent seat with the opposition delegation.
Gen. Tlass, 53, son of the eminent Gen. Mustafa Tlass, defense minister under President Hafez Assad, was awarded high honors by his son Bashar as one of his closest friends. Although appointed commander of the prestigious 104th Brigade in the Syrian Republican Guard, Manas chose to defect and flee the country in 2012, not long after the outbreak of the Syrian uprising.
Our sources report that Moscow has chosen him as lead player in Syria’s post-Assad era, initially in the transition government in Damascus which is scheduled to start evolving from the peace process kicked off at Astana this week. This does not imply that Bashar Assad will be gone in a day – only that a new mechanism will be put in place to start curtailing his powers.
How quickly and how far this process will unfold cannot yet be determined.
Iran threatens to be one of the main obstacles to any reduction in Assad’s powers. For Tehran, he stands as a bulwark against the expulsion of its own and Hizballah forces from the country. As long as he is in charge, Iran will have the use of a land bridge to Lebanon and its proxy, Hizballah, via Iraq and Syria.
At the same time, Russia, Turkey and the Syrian rebel groups backed by Turkey and Saudi Arabia are demanding the removal from Syrian soil of Iranian forces and pro-Iranian Afghan and Pakistani Shiite militias (30,000 fighters in all) as well as the 10,000 Hizballah combatants.
Neither Hizballah, nor the Shiite militias are represented at the Astana conference which leaves them deliberately at a disadvantage.
But Iran is preparing to make its removal from Syria as difficult as possible. One way is to start dominating Syria’s strategic infrastructure. And so, on Jan. 18. Syrian Prime Minister Emad Khamis, who was on a visit to Tehran, signed five accords granting Iran exclusive rights as the sole operator and developer of Syria’s country’s cell phone network.
And, according to our intelligence sources, a number of secret provisions were buried in those deals. One gave Iran permission to interlink the cell phone networks between Syria and Hizballah in Lebanon as a device to guarantee the Lebanese terror group’s permanent presence in Syria.
Deliberations at the Astana conference will focus at its first sessions Monday on stabilizing the ceasefire between government and Syrian rebel groups (excluding the jihadist ISIS and Nusra Front). This ceasefire has for the most part held up since it went into effect late last month.
The effort to turn the truce into a more permanent cessation of hostilities will be long and arduous, entailing negotiations on such tough issues as land swaps and rights to use main traffic and supply routes. Only when they are resolved, can the two sides approach the next stage, a discussion of Syria’s political future, i.e. the fate of the regime headed by Bashar Assad.
Although Moscow invited the new Trump administration to send a representative to the Kazakh conference, it was declined. Washington only sent the US ambassador to Kazakhstan to attend as an observer.
This does not mean that President Donald Trump has decided to leave the resolution of the Syrian issue solely in Russian hands. Washington and Moscow are still in the middle of discussing this and other critical questions and no final decisions have been reached in either capital.
Presidential Inauguration ceremony, Washington DC, USA – 20 Jan 2017 (Rex Features via AP Images)
Trump may fail, of course: no one should underestimate the strength of the opposition he will face. But I suspect he is part of a worldwide movement of revulsion against the sclerotic utopianism of political correctness. We are doubtless in for a wild ride. But I cannot think of a moment, at least not since 1980, when a current of burgeoning self-confidence was so powerfully asserting itself.
************************
Absorbing the reaction to Donald Trump’s inaugural address yesterday, I thought about a famous passage from Act II of The Tempest. A few of the shipwrecked men are taking stock of their situation on Prospero’s enchanted island. It soon becomes clear that the island appears very different to different characters:
ADRIAN: The air breathes upon us here most sweetly.
SEBASTIAN: As if it had lungs and rotten ones
ANTONIO: Or as ’twere perfumed by a fen.
GONZALO: Here is everything advantageous to life.
ANTONIO: True; save means to live.
SEBASTIAN: Of that there’s none, or little.
GONZALO: How lush and lusty the grass looks! how green!
ANTONIO: The ground indeed is tawny.
SEBASTIAN: With an eye of green in’t.
ANTONIO: He misses not much.
SEBASTIAN: No; he doth but mistake the truth totally.
Friday afternoon, I wrote a brief piece about the inauguration for the Financial Times (requires registration) in which I described Trump’s address as “gracious but plain-speaking.” My, how the readers of the FT disliked that!
To be fair, the legacy media in America hated Trump’s speech, too, as did — and this is the more interesting thing — the anti-Trump Right. The Chicago Tribune described the speech as “raw, angry and aggrieved,” “pugnacious in tone, pitch black in its color.” OK, par for the course. But Andrew Ferguson, writing in The Wall Street Journal, said that “the candidate who campaigned as a sociopath shows signs he may yet govern as one.” (“Sociopath”? Caligula was a sociopath. Donald Trump?) Sure, Chris “Old Reliable” Matthews, ready as ever with the Godwin Expedient, described the speech as “Hiterlian.” But just about every mainstream outlet from The Weekly Standard on down referred to the speech as “dark.” I was a bit taken aback to hear a politically mature friend describe the speech as “disgusting,” “nasty,” “borderline unAmerican” and then go on, listing Godwinwards, to invoke “beer halls” (you know what that means!) in connection with the speech.
So what do you think, is the ground tawny? Or does the ground look lush and lusty?
I said that Trump’s speech was gracious. Here’s how he began:
Every four years, we gather on these steps to carry out the orderly and peaceful transfer of power, and we are grateful to President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama for their gracious aid throughout this transition. They have been magnificent.
“Raw”? “Angry”? “Nasty”? “Disgusting”?
Granted, that was merely the prelude. The rest of the short speech (it was only about 1400 words) is what I called “plain-speaking.” Trump negotiated the transition from gracious prelude to forthright substance with the word “however”:
Today’s ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one Administration to another, or from one party to another – but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People.
During the primaries, my favored candidate was Ted Cruz, partly because I thought he was the most serious about bringing the bipartisan, leach-like Washington gravy train to an abrupt halt.
At first, I regarded Donald Trump as just another big-government operator who would not reform Washington so much as find ways to exploit it for his own benefit. So far, I have to say, I have been pleasantly surprised. Sure, it is early days. But he has spoken of making staff cuts of 20% and a budget cut of 10%. And, in what is the real kernel of his inauguration address, he gives the rationale: his administration will not just be Washington business as usual, in which new leaches come to town to replace the old leaches, but will actually endeavor to alter the basic, perverted metabolism that has taken root in Washington. The aim, he said, was not simply to transfer power from one party to another — chaps with different hats but the same grasping hands and insatiable appetite for your money — but to transfer it from Washington to where Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson and the rest thought it should be, to We the People.
Will Donald Trump be able to accomplish this? I do not know. But I applaud the ambition.
Trump began with a few general observations:
For too long, a small group in our nation’s Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.
Washington flourished – but the people did not share in its wealth.
Politicians prospered – but the jobs left, and the factories closed.
The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country.
Which of those statements do you find “Dark”? “Nasty”? “Aggreived?” “Disgusting”? Or, more to the point, which do you find untrue?
Trump then came to the constructive part of his talk. First, a promise:
That all changes – starting right here, and right now, because this moment is your moment.
“What truly matters,” he continued, “is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people.” Is that “dark,” or merely Madisonian?
“January 20th 2017,” he said, “will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again.”
Well, we’ll see about that. But let’s say it is. Would that be a bad, a “borderline unAmerican” thing?
Again, Trump reminded his audience that “a nation exists to serve its citizens.” At least, that’s the idea. But something has gone wrong. I’d say that a combination of bureaucratic metastasis combined with cronyism has upset the system. Trump used different words, but his diagnosis comes to the same thing.
“Americans,” he said, “want great schools for their children, safe neighborhoods for their families, and good jobs for themselves.” Any objections so far? No? How about to this:
But for too many of our citizens, a different reality exists: Mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities; rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation; an education system, flush with cash, but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of knowledge; and the crime and gangs and drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential.
That’s a dire diagnosis, maybe a “dark” diagnosis. But is it “disgusting,” “borderline unAmerican,” etc.? Again, is it, any of it, untrue?
Trump went on to say that “this American carnage stops right here and stops right now.” Many commentators took issue with the word “carnage.” But think about it. According to CNN, in 2016 Chicago saw 762 murders, 3,550 shooting incidents, 4,331 shooting victims.
How do you define “carnage”?
But now we come to the really contentious part of the address, the part where Trump declared that “from this day forward, a new vision will govern our land. From this moment on, it’s going to be America First.”
Imagine that! An American president that puts America first! Can you believe it?
Let’s clear up one red herring immediately. Donald Trump’s ambition to resuscitate American industry, benefit American workers, revitalize the American military has nothing but a verbal connection with the America First Committee, the non-interventionist group that militated against America’s entry into World War II from September 1940 until the bombing of Pearl Harbor (it was dissolved on December 10, 1941). Elaborate ghost stories have been spun around Trump’s use of the phrase “America first.” But as far as I can see, the dreadful tales are nothing more than desperate fantasies promulgated, repeated, and elaborated by people who have made a large psychic investment in regarding Trump as a monster.
“America First”: what, specifically, does Trump mean by that?
Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs, will be made to benefit American workers and American families.
Is that a bad thing, “raw,” “dark,” “nasty,” etc.?
Trump continues:
We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies, and destroying our jobs. Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength.
“Protection” was another word that caused pain: Does Trump want to start a trade war? Impose tariffs? Return us to a protectionist isolationism?
Well, that is not how I read it. There is, first of all, a difference between “protection” and “protectionism.” I’m not just playing with words. “Protectionism” is a ideology. The sort of “protection” Trump is talking about, as I understand it, is about self-defense.
But what about free trade, the free movement of capital, cheap labor, etc.? Again, I think those issues, though important, are largely a distraction in the context of Trump’s ambitions. Trump is speaking as president of the Untied States and he is saying that his first obligation is to us, the citizens of the United States. I find that refreshing after eight years of a transnational progressive at the helm.
Trump’s point is this: We may all be part of the family of man, but we can best serve our sisters and our cousins and our aunts (apologies to W.S. Gilbert) if we ourselves are strong. How can we accomplish that? Trump said that “we will bring back our jobs. We will bring back our borders. We will bring back our wealth.” That’s a start, surely. And then: “We will build new roads, and highways, and bridges, and airports, and tunnels, and railways all across our wonderful nation.”
How are we going to pay for that, you might ask, and that’s a good question. But, I would submit, in the context of an aspirational oration such as an inaugural address, that is a secondary consideration. The main thing is the ambition and the program, which, says Trump, can be distilled into “two simple rules: Buy American and Hire American.”
A lot of people really hated that. They found it “raw,” “dark,” “nasty,” etc. Do you?
Trump is not, he hastened to point out, seeking a splendid isolation.
We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world – but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first.
That sounds good to me. Do you find it “pugnacious in tone, pitch black in its color”? I don’t. I find it merely healthy and realistic.
What was genuinely, I’d say gloriously “pugnacious,” however, was Trump’s attitude toward terrorism. The administration of Barack Obama studiously avoided even mentioning the word “Islamic” in a sentence that contained “terrorism.”
Donald Trump, refreshingly to my mind, stated the obvious: “We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones,” he said, “and unite the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth.”
Now, Donald Trump may underestimate the difficulty of that task, but I for one applaud the ambition and prefer his attitude to the namby-pamby “it-has-nothing-to-do-with-Islam” ideology of the last eight years, actually, more than eight years.
James Fitzjames Stephen, the great critic of John Stuart Mill, saw deeply into the reality of Trump’s “America First” exhortation in his book Liberty, Equality, Fraternity: “The man who works from himself outwards,” Stephen observed,
whose conduct is governed by ordinary motives, and who acts with a view to his own advantage and the advantage of those who are connected with himself in definite, assignable ways, produces in the ordinary course of things much more happiness to others . . . than a moral Don Quixote who is always liable to sacrifice himself and his neighbors. On the other hand, a man who has a disinterested love of the human race—that is to say, who has got a fixed idea about some way of providing for the management of the concerns of mankind—is an unaccountable person . . . who is capable of making his love for men in general the ground of all sorts of violence against men in particular.
I can imagine a story by Borges in which we learn of the influence of Donald Trump on Stephen.
Critics saw many malevolent things in Trump’s speech. I discerned a generous spirt tempered by realism about the way the world works and a sound appreciation of human psychology. “At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America,” Trump wrote, “and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other.”
One of the most poisonous features of contemporary social life has been been the insinuation of political correctness into the academy and politics. It has stifled honesty and transformed principled disagreement into rancid heresy that must be stamped out, not argued with. Trump explicitly challenged that toxic development, insisting that “we must speak our minds openly, debate our disagreements honestly, but always pursue solidarity.”
As he neared his conclusion, his tone became hortatory: “We stand at the birth of a new millennium, ready to unlock the mysteries of space, to free the Earth from the miseries of disease, and to harness the energies, industries and technologies of tomorrow.” And then came this dollop of poetry:
It is time to remember that old wisdom our soldiers will never forget: that whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots, we all enjoy the same glorious freedoms, and we all salute the same great American Flag.
And whether a child is born in the urban sprawl of Detroit or the windswept plains of Nebraska, they look up at the same night sky, they fill their heart with the same dreams, and they are infused with the breath of life by the same almighty Creator.
“Raw”? “Dark?”
Donald Trump has set out to “make America great again.” His real offense is to attempt to do so behind the backs of the vast network of established interests from both parties. I had my doubts that Trump would come to Washington and “drain the swamp.” But on the evidence of his behavior as president-elect and his less than two days as President, I am convinced that he will make every effort to do just that. Look at the “top issues” that appeared on the White House website within minutes of his address:
Trump may fail, of course: no one should underestimate the strength of the opposition he will face. But I suspect he is part of a worldwide movement of revulsion against the sclerotic utopianism of political correctness. We are doubtless in for a wild ride. But I cannot think of a moment, at least not since 1980, when a current of burgeoning self-confidence was so powerfully asserting itself.
We are fed up with the Europhiles in Brussels, who want to abolish our countries and impose an undemocratic super-state, in which we become a single multicultural society.
To this Europe we say no!
We stand for a Europe of national states and freedom!
We will take our countries back. We will make sure that our countries will stay ours.
********************
Hello Germany. Is everything alright? I’m doing well.
Yesterday a new America, today Koblenz and tomorrow a new Europe!
It’s really a great honor for me to be here today in the beautiful city of Koblenz, at a meeting of the ENF Group, in the presence of so many German patriots.
And what you stand for is extremely important. Not only for Germany, but for all of Europe.
Europe needs a strong Germany, a self-conscious Germany, a proud Germany, a Germany that stands for its culture, identity and civilization.
Europe needs Frauke [Petry], instead of Angela [Merkel]!
My friends, that is why Germany is so great. Why you are great. Because you do your duty. And the Alternative for Germany (AfD), and my friend Frauke Petry, and all of you here, stand against the new totalitarianism that threatens us today.
We are at the beginning of a Patriotic Spring across Europe, and also here in Germany. And I thank you for that. You are the new Germany.
And all our European countries are faced with the question of their existence. My friends, the United Nations expects that the population of Africa will quadruple by the end of the century — from 1.1 billion today, to 4.4 billion. Studies show that in Southern Africa, one in three adults wants to emigrate. And in North Africa and the Middle East, one in five wants to emigrate. Many of them want to come to Europe in the future.
The question that none of our ruling politicians now ask is: How do we protect our country and our identity against mass immigration? How do we protect our values?
How do we protect our civilization? Our culture? The future of our children? These are the fundamental questions we have to answer.
In recent years, our governments have allowed millions of people to flow uncontrollably into our countries. Our governments have conducted a dangerous open-borders policy.
And I know, as do you, that when the citizens of Eastern Europe defeated communism in 1989, they were inspired by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Vaclav Havel, Vladimir Bukovski and others, who told them that people have the right, but also a commitment, to “live in the truth.”
Friends, liberty requires eternal vigilance. And this applies also to the truth. And Solzhenitsyn added that — I quote — “truth seldom is sweet; it is almost invariably bitter.”
And let us hear the bitter truth: Our leaders have lost their ability to recognize danger and understand the truth, because they no longer value freedom.
Politicians from almost all of the established parties are promoting our Islamization. Almost the entire Establishment, the elite universities, the churches, the media, politicians, put our hard-earned liberties at risk.
They talk about equality, but, incredibly, are incapable of seeing that in Islam, women have fewer rights than men, and infidels have fewer rights than the followers of Islam.
They are blind to the truth — but we are not! And we do not accept that they are blind to the truth. We no longer accept that the elites have abandoned the people.
It breaks my heart when I see that people have become strangers in their own land — almost everywhere in Europe.
But it is our country; it’s not their country — it’s our country. And it is unacceptable that you fear for the future of your children, that women are afraid, that Jews, ex-Muslims, Christians fear for their safety.
Day after day, for years, we are experiencing the decay of our cherished values. The equality of men and women, freedom of opinion and speech, tolerance of homosexuality — all this is in retreat.
And I say to you, my friends: We do not want this. We do not want Germany or any other country in Europe to abolish itself! We don’t want that!
We want our homeland to remain our homeland.
We want to stay who we are!
We are secure, free, democratic, proud of our culture!
My friends, what we see today is that fear reigns. Many people are desperate. Our rulers are cowardly. Our security is disappearing; our freedom is in danger.
And many normal people are afraid to say what they think. Women are afraid to show their blonde hair.
And this charade must be stopped! More and more people demand this! We demand this!
And I tell you: Enough is enough!
And then there is also the great danger of Islamic terrorism.
A German undercover journalist recently revealed that some refugee housing centers have become breeding-grounds for terrorists. The consequences are visible to everyone.
Recall the massacre at the Berlin Christmas market. Remember also the black summer of terror last year, here in Germany. We also remember Cologne and the mass assaults of hundreds of innocent women.
And yet our governments fail to do anything. But if we do nothing, we cease to exist.
Some immigrants have come here with entirely different values.
This is a fact — not a political fact, but a fact confirmed by scientists such as the Dutch Professor Ruud Koopmans, from Humboldt University in Berlin. His investigations showed that about half of all Muslims in Germany aspire to the roots of Islam.
Professor Koopmans also says that — I quote — “of a billion Muslims worldwide, between ten and twenty percent are willing to accept violence, even against civilians, to defend Islam.” End of quotation.
But despite all these terrible warnings, our rulers refuse to see the elephant in the room.
The people are fed up with the political correctness of the elites! Are you fed up, or are you not fed up?
We are fed up with the elites, who offer you a beautiful ideal world, in which all cultures are morally equivalent.
The people demand — we demand — the truth!
And we must tell them the truth, because people have a right to the truth!
Because the people should not be abandoned.
We, here, are the hope of the people! And we will never disappoint them! Never!
You may have heard that the Dutch government is trying to silence me.
But I say to you, I will never shut up!
I am on many death-lists just because they hate me, because I criticize Islam, and because I am a friend of Israel.
But I will never be silent, despite all the threats from politicians and terrorists.
For the free expression of opinions is, my friends, the basis of democracy.
There is, however, much positive news. There is reason for hope. There is light at the end of the tunnel. Better times will come. The wind started to shift last year. It brought us the victory of — and from here, congratulations to — Donald Trump, the President of the United States.
But not only in America. We also see it here in Germany, the Netherlands, France, Italy, Austria, throughout Europe: The patriots are winning. The time for a change has come. And that is why, my friends, it gives me tremendous courage to see you all here today.
This room full of German patriots shows me something very important. It shows me that Germany is not lost!
It shows me that Germany will survive!
You are a good force. The force that brings this beautiful country back on the right path. On the path to a patriotic future. A secure future. A free future. Our future!
History calls on you to save Germany. History calls on us all to save Europe. To save our own humanistic Judeo-Christian culture and civilization, our liberties, our nations, the future of our children.
And we have no choice. We will do it.
My party, the PVV in the Netherlands; Frauke Petry and Marcus Pretzell and the AfD here in Germany; Marine Le Pen and Front National in France — and yes, Marine Le Pen will be the next president of France!
But, naturally, also Hans-Christian Strache and Harald Vilimsky and the FPÖ, our friends in Austria.
Tom van Grieken and Gerolf Annemans and our friends from the Vlaams Belang in Flanders.
And all the other politicians.
But I tell you, we politicians are not important here. It’s not about us. It’s about you; it’s about the voters.
It’s about the people here in this room, and also the millions throughout the country — not we, but you are important.
You are the true heroes and the saviors of Europe. And I thank you for that.
Our parties give the people an opportunity to vote for good patriots. Patriots who want to make our borders safe again! Patriots who want to stop mass immigration! Patriots who want to restore the sovereignty of our countries, our money, our laws and our future.
We are fed up with the Europhiles in Brussels, who want to abolish our countries and impose an undemocratic super-state, in which we become a single multicultural society.
To this Europe we say no!
We stand for a Europe of national states and freedom!
We will take our countries back. We will make sure that our countries will stay ours.
My friends, this year will be the year of the people!
The year when the voice of the people finally will be heard!
The year of a democratic and nonviolent political revolution in Europe.
The year of liberation!
The year of the Patriotic Spring!
In two months, next March, we will give the Dutch people the chance to free the Netherlands! And next April, Marine, as I already said, will be the next president of France!
And next autumn it’s your turn, my dear German friends. I am absolutely convinced that with Frauke Petry, the future of Germany is guaranteed.
Long live the German Spring!
And I tell you: We will liberate ourselves. We will make our countries great again! We can do it!
Everywhere in Europe, we are electing new and courageous politicians who serve the interests of the people. And together we will win!
My friends, we live in historic times.
The people of the West are awakening. They are casting off the yoke of political correctness.
They want their freedom back.
They want their sovereign nations back.
And we, the patriots of Europe, will be their instrument of liberation!
Long live freedom!
Long live The Netherlands!
Long live Germany!
Long live the Alternative for Germany!
Obama takes a parting shot at Hillary Clinton during his last night as President. He admits to the American Center of Law and Justice that his State Department worked with the Clinton Foundation to secure a position as a “favor.” I guess Obama truly wanted to do the right thing before he left office. Many thought he would pardon Clinton, but he chose not to do that. Further, he chose to reveal this information of collusion between his State Department and the Clinton Foundation. We all knew it was happening, but now we have the outgoing President of the United States coming clean to the American Center of Law and Justice.
In case you are not familiar with the ACLJ here is the following: Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), focusing on constitutional law, is based in Washington, D.C. and is online at www.aclj.org. We thank them for their excellent work for the American people.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 20, 2017 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), which has filed a number of federal lawsuits against the Obama Administration to obtain information through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, said today it has received a response from the Obama State Department – on the eve of President Obama’s final day in office – revealing the name of a person who received a top position in the Obama Administration after the Clinton Foundation urged then Secretary of State Clinton’s aides to do a “favor” for a person who ended up getting a top job in the State Department.
In the fall of 2016, Judicial Watch received hundreds of pages of documents from the State Department – including an email exchange between Clinton Foundation Executive Doug Band and top aides to then Secretary Clinton – Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills – urging them to do a “favor” noting it was “important to take care of [name redacted]” – an individual whose name was redacted by the State Department.
We are seeing those old familiar names appearing again, as we discover a new revelation from President Obama. We, also, are able to view the documents in question. The following documents give the individual’s name and reveal he was given a top position in the State Department on the closure of the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (GITMO).
Brock Johnson was the appointee, who received the “favor.” I am sure this is one favor Obama regrets giving. According to documents provided by the State Department, the person who received the “favor” is Brock Johnson, identified in news reports as a former Obama campaign operative. According to the State Department, Johnson was hired in May 2009 – two weeks after the Clinton Foundation email asking for a “favor” – as “Special Assistant to the Special Envoy for Guantanamo Closure.” The job description states that he was to help the Special Envoy “in furtherance of President Obama’s order to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.”
We see an old name pop up from Clinton’s campaign, Cheryl Mills, who was Johnson’s supervisor. His job was classified as “critical sensitive” at the State Department.
“This is exactly the kind of collusion between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department that is totally inappropriate,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. “We suspected that this type of behavior was taking place and now we have proof. It’s both troubling and unfortunate that the Obama State Department – under the direction of then Secretary Clinton – engaged in such activity and worse yet that both Secretary Clinton and the State Department went to great lengths to conceal this inappropriate action.”
In addition to the ongoing litigation involving collusion with the Clinton Foundation, the ACLJ continues its ongoing litigation against President Obama’s continuing legacy – the out-of-control bureaucracy – over the Iran lie, inaction on genocide, and the secret meeting between Attorney General Lynch and former President Bill Clinton.
In conclusion, this is a win for we the people, and I thank the ACLJ for all their persistence and hard work. This should also help Rep. Jason Chaffetz of the House Oversight Committee, as he performs his investigation into the Clinton Foundation.
I, also, would like to thank President Obama for not pardoning Hillary Clinton, and revealing the collusion between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation.
Based on the testimony of Jeff Sessions, Trump’s pick for Attorney General of the United States, an investigation of Hillary’s emails and/or the Clinton Foundation could result in an indictment. If this happens, MANY OTHER PEOPLE/ENTITIES could be implicated, including Barack Obama himself, in Hillary’s crimes.
Hillary is guilty, already, of numerous crimes including harboring classified information on an undesignated, non-governmental server. Several brave military men in the U.S. have been convicted with FAR LESS evidence, and some of these people are facing lengthy prison sentences. James Comey of the FBI, however, decided to ignore Hillary’s obvious crimes and not indict. This was purely political and will tarnish his reputation.
We know that Comey was influenced by a rogue operative in the state department named Patrick Kennedy, who has worked in the department since the 1970s. Based on reports in the media and confirmed now by the FBI report that was declassified, Patrick Kennedy engaged in a quid pro quo with Comey’s FBI in order to keep Hillary safe from an indictment. He got what he wanted, Comey dismissed the opportunity to press charges on at least two occasions, despite testifying before Congress that Hillary Clinton did, indeed, store classified intelligence on her server.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reached out to the Iranian people on Saturday evening, slamming the regime that he said oppresses them and vowing that aggression by Tehran would top his list of priorities during his first contacts with US President Donald Trump.
In a clip posted on Facebook minutes after Shabbat ended, the prime minister stresses that Israel does not consider the Iranian people to be the enemy, but only the regime that rules them. While stopping short of calling on the Iranians to revolt, he described a brutal dictatorship preventing them from living the Western lives they ostensibly seek.
“I plan to speak soon with President Trump about how to counter the threat of the Iranian regime, which calls for Israel’s destruction,” Netanyahu says in the video, speaking in English with Persian subtitles.
“But it struck me recently that I’ve spoken a lot about the Iranian regime and not enough about the Iranian people, or for that matter, to the Iranian people. So I hope this message reaches every Iranian — young and old, religious and secular, man and woman.”
The Iranian people prefer to live without fear, enjoying Western freedom and liberties, the prime minister says. “I know you’d want to be able to speak freely, to love who you want without the fear of being tortured or hung from a crane.”
Iranians have a proud history and rich culture, he adds. “Tragically, you are shackled by a theocratic tyranny. In a free Iran you will once again be able to flourish without limit. But today, a cruel regime is trying to keep you down.”
Iranians burn a poster of late Israeli president Shimon Peres outside the former US embassy in the Iranian capital Tehran on November 3, 2016. (AFP PHOTO / ATTA KENARE)
Netanyahu goes on to describe how the “ruthless regime” continues to deny the Iranian people’s freedom “by disqualifying thousands as candidates in elections or by stealing money to support Syria’s President Assad.”
“By calling daily for Israel’s destruction, the regime hopes to instill hostility between us. This is wrong. We are your friend, not your enemy. We’ve always distinguished between the Iranian people and the Iranian regime,” he says.
“The regime is cruel – the people are not; the regime is aggressive – the people are warm. I yearn for the day when Israelis and Iranians can once again visit each other freely in Tehran and Esfahan, in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.”
Israel and Iran enjoyed close ties before the 1979 revolution that saw the secular regime of the Shah swept from power by the Islamic fundamentalist regime that still rules the country today.
Israelis and Iranians “can work together for a more peaceful and hopeful future for both of us,” the prime minister concludes. “We must defeat terror and tyranny and we must ensure that freedom and friendship win the day.”
Education Minister Naftali Bennett arrives at a special meeting of his Jewish Home faction in the Israeli settlement of Maale Adumin, in the West Bank on January 2, 2017 (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)
Reacting on Twitter to Netanyahu’s post, Education Minister Bennett said that Iran was an important subject, “but preventing another Iran in the heart of Judea and Samaria [West Bank] is no less important.”
The “pretext of the Iranian threat” must not be allowed to cause Israel to “miss a historic opportunity to prevent Palestine on Route 6,” Bennett said, referring to a toll road that runs almost the entire length of the country.
Bennett, the leader of the pro-settler Jewish Home party, was referring to Netanyahu’s stated support for a two-state solution. Bennett, on the other hand, vehemently rejects the idea of a Palestinian state anywhere in the West Bank, arguing that Trump’s ostensible pro-Israel policies will allow Israel to annex part of the area. Earlier on Saturday night, he hailed Trump’s presidency on Twitter as the dawn of a “new diplomatic era,” and vowed to push for a partial annexation of the West Bank.
The genie will not go back into the bottle again, whether you like it or not.” — Geert Wilders, MP and head of the Party for Freedom, the Netherlands.
A growing number of Europeans are rebelling against decades of government-imposed multiculturalism, politically correct speech codes and mass migration from the Muslim world.
Europe’s establishment parties, far from addressing the concerns of ordinary voters, have tried to silence dissent by branding naysayers as xenophobes, Islamophobes and neo-Nazis.
“In many respects, France and Germany are proving they do not understand the meaning of Brexit. They are reflexively, almost religiously, following exactly the path that has provoked the EU’s current existential crisis.” — Ambassador John R. Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
“There is a genuine feeling that Trump taking over the White House is part of a bigger, global movement. Our critics, looking at Trump’s candidacy and his speech yesterday, would call it the rise of populism. I would say it’s simply a return to nation state democracy and proper values…. This is a genuine political revolution.” — Nigel Farage, former head of Britain’s UKIP party, who led the effort for the United Kingdom to leave the EU.
“This disruption is fruitful. The taboos of the last few years are now fully on the agenda: illegal immigration, Islam, the nonsense of open borders, the dysfunctional EU, the free movement of people, jobs, law and order. Trump’s predecessors did not want to talk about it, but the majority of voters did. This is democracy.” — Roger Köppel, editor-in-chief of Die Weltwoche, Switzerland.
Inspired by the inauguration of U.S. President Donald J. Trump, the leaders of Europe’s main anti-establishment parties have held a pan-European rally aimed at coordinating a political strategy to mobilize potentially millions of disillusioned voters in upcoming elections in Germany, the Netherlands and France.
Appearing together in public for the first time, Marine Le Pen, leader of the French National Front, Frauke Petry, leader of the Alternative for Germany (AfD), Geert Wilders, leader of the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV), Matteo Salvini, leader of Italy’s Northern League and Harald Vilimsky of Austria’s Freedom Party gathered on January 21 at a rally in Koblenz, Germany, where they called on European voters to participate in a “patriotic spring” to topple the European Union, reassert national sovereignty and secure national borders.
The leaders of Europe’s main anti-establishment parties appearing together in public for the first time, on January 21 in Koblenz, Germany. (Image source: Marine Le Pen/Twitter)
The two-hour rally was held under the banner of the Europe of Nations and Freedom (ENF), a group established in June 2015 by Members of the European Parliament from nine counties to oppose European federalism and the transfer of political power from voters to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, the de facto capital of the European Union.
Referring to the June 2016 decision by British voters to leave the European Union, and the rise of President Donald Trump in the United States, Le Pen said:
“We are living through the end of one world, and the birth of another. We are experiencing the return of nation-states. 2016 was the year the Anglo-Saxon world woke up. 2017, I am sure, will be the year in which the peoples of the European continent rise up.”
“The world is changing. America is changing. Europe is changing. It started last year with Brexit, yesterday there was Trump and today the freedom-loving parties gathered in Koblenz are making a stand. The genie will not go back into the bottle again, whether you like it or not. The people of the West are awakening. They are throwing off the yoke of political correctness.”
Polls indicate that the political sea change engulfing the United States is fueling support for anti-establishment parties in Europe. In addition to anger over eroding sovereignty, a growing number of Europeans are rebelling against decades of government-imposed multiculturalism, politically correct speech codes and mass migration from the Muslim world.
In France, a new Ipsos poll for Le Mondeshows that Marine Le Pen is now poised to win the first round of the French presidential election set for April 23, 2017. Le Pen has between 25% and 26% support among likely voters, compared to 23% and 25% for François Fillon of the center-right Republicans party. In December 2016, Fillon held a three-point lead over Le Pen.
In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders is now leading polls ahead of the general election scheduled for March 15, 2017. The PVV has the support of between 29% and 33% of the electorate. By contrast, support for the ruling People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) has fallen to between 23% and 27%.
In Germany, the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany party (AfD) has become the third-largest party the country, with support at around 15% percent. The AfD had gained representation in ten of Germany’s 16 state parliaments, and the party hopes to win seats in the Federal Parliament (Bundestag) for the first time in national elections set for September 24, 2017.
Europe’s establishment parties, far from addressing the concerns of ordinary voters, have tried to silence dissent by branding naysayers as xenophobes, Islamophobes and neo-Nazis.
In Germany, for example, Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel, in an underhanded effort to silence criticism of the government’s open door migration policy, called for German intelligence to begin monitoring the AfD.
The German Interior Ministry is now proposing to establish a “Defense Center against Disinformation” (Abwehrzentrum gegen Desinformation) to combat “fake news.” Critics have described the proposed center as a “censorship monster” aimed at silencing dissenting opinions.
Enter Trump. If sufficient numbers of European voters are inspired by the political transformation taking place in the United States, the balance of European political power may begin to shift in favor of the anti-establishment parties. European political and media elites will therefore surely view Trump as a threat to the Europe’s established political order.
In a January 16 interview with the Times of London and Germany’s Bild, Trump said he believed that Brexit is “going to end up being a great thing.” He added that German Chancellor Angela Merkel made an “utterly catastrophic mistake by letting all these illegals into the country.”
In the same interview, Trump said that the NATO alliance “is very important to me” but he called it “obsolete” for failing to contain the threat posed to the West by Islamic terrorism. He also complained that some countries “don’t pay what they should pay.” Of the 28 countries in the alliance, only five — Britain, Estonia, Greece, Poland and the United States — meet the target of spending at least 2% of their GDP on defense.
European commentators roundly criticized Trump for his comments and some accused the United States of being an “unreliable partner.” European leaders repeated calls for a pan-European Army, a long-held goal of European federalists, which would entail an unprecedented transfer of sovereignty from European nation states to the European Union.
Gatestone Institute Chairman Ambassador John R. Bolton, has provided much-needed context to the debate over NATO. In a recent article for the Boston Globe, he wrote:
“NATO has taken intense criticism this year from Donald Trump, evoking howls of outrage from foreign-policy establishment worthies. The worthies know, however, that Trump is simply using his bullhorn to say what they themselves say more quietly: NATO’s decision-making is often sclerotic; its mission has not been adequately redefined after the Cold War; and too many members haven’t carried their weight financially or militarily for long years…. Trump has emphasized that his complaints are intended to encourage debate about improving and strengthening NATO, not sundering it. The debate is well worth having.”
Bolton added:
“In many respects, France and Germany are proving they do not understand the meaning of Brexit. They are reflexively, almost religiously, following exactly the path that has provoked the EU’s current existential crisis: every failure of closer integration by the ‘European project’ leads only to calls for more integration. Whether it is establishing a currency without a government; pledging military capabilities that collectively the EU never achieves; or pretending to an EU role in world affairs that no one outside of Brussels takes seriously, ‘more Europe’ is always the answer.”
European Reactions to President Trump’s Inauguration
Trump’s presidential inauguration speech was greeted with formal politeness by European leaders — most of whom will have to work with the new leader of the free world — and with unbridled derision by European commentators and media elites — many of whom appear to be in denial about the anti-establishment fervor sweeping the United States and Europe.
Much of the European commentary about Trump has consisted of name-calling and anti-Americanism. A handful of European analysts, however, have called for introspection and self-criticism.
What follows is a brief selection of European commentary on Trump’s inauguration:
In Britain, reactions to Trump were evenly divided between those who do and do not support British membership in the European Union. Prime Minister Theresa May said:
“From our conversations to date, I know we are both committed to advancing the special relationship between our two countries and working together for the prosperity and security of people on both sides of the Atlantic.”
“I think that the new president has made it very clear that he wants to put Britain at the front of the line for a new trade deal and obviously that’s extremely exciting and important.”
Nigel Farage, the politician who led the effort for the United Kingdom to leave the EU, was one of the few Europeans to understand the magnitude of Trump’s rise. He wrote:
“There is a genuine feeling that Trump taking over the White House is part of a bigger, global movement. Our critics, looking at Trump’s candidacy and his speech yesterday, would call it the rise of populism. I would say it’s simply a return to nation state democracy and proper values. For this inauguration is not just a change from the 44th President to the 45th President of the United States. This is a genuine political revolution.”
In France, President François Hollande advised Trump to stay out of European affairs — this a few days after the French government tried to impose a “two-state solution” on Israel. He said: “Europe will be ready to pursue transatlantic cooperation, but it will be based on its interests and values. It does not need outside advice to tell it what to do.”
Marine Le Pen said: “Clearly, the victory of Donald Trump is another step toward the emergence of a new world, whose vocation is to replace an old order.”
Jean-Marie Colombani, the former editor-in-chief of Le Monde, articulated Europe’s geopolitical predicament, which is the direct consequence of a failure to prioritize French defense spending:
“From an American point of view, Vladimir Putin is a secondary problem: Russia is a medium power, which can certainly create problems for the United States, but only marginally, as in Syria, for example. China is the only power to rival the United States. It will be, already is, the only obsession of Trump’s America.
“Vladimir Putin represents a problem, if not a threat, for Europe. In fact, the Russian President has set the goal of weakening the European Union, in order to restore the role of guardian that the USSR exercised in the East of Europe, in countries that are now members of the EU and NATO. Everything suggests that Trump shares the same objective: to weaken Europe.
“Indeed, Trump’s European policy is inspired by Nigel Farage, who spearheaded the campaign for Brexit, and whose political aim is now to achieve the dismantling of the European Union. This explains the prediction formulated by Trump on the soon-coming demise of Europe, and his anti-German undertones. In the new American president we find the language and elements of all the populist and extremist parties whose common doctrine is hostility towards the European project. Here, then, in the East and the West, Europe is squeezed as in a vise!”
In Germany, which is wholly dependent upon the United States for defense, and which has steadfastly refused to meet its commitment to pay 2% of GDP on defense, reaction to Trump’s speech was overwhelmingly negative.
Chancellor Angela Merkel pledged to work with Trump to preserve the transatlantic relationship. “The trans-Atlantic relationship will not be less important in the coming years than it was in past years,” she said. “And I will work on that. Even when there are different opinions, compromises and solutions can be best found when we exchange ideas with respect.”
Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel was far less diplomatic. He said: “We have to take this man seriously. What we heard today were highly nationalistic tones. I think we have to prepare for a rough ride.” He called on Europeans to unite to “defend our interests.”
Writing for Deutsche Welle, commentator Max Hofmann admonished Europeans to stop complaining about Trump and instead put their own house in order:
“What do you do when your closest partner just disappears on you? You do what the EU should have done long ago: you fix up your home, regardless of what ‘The Donald’ is doing in the USA. There is enough work that needs to be done in Europe with regard to ‘putting your own house in order’ — Brexit, migration and refugee policies, the euro. If Europeans were honest to themselves and viewed what is happening on the old continent from the American perspective — and not just that one — then the situation would not be comprehensible to them. If US parliamentarians were to call European dissent ‘madness’ or ‘nonsense,’ no one could blame them.”
Commentator Hubert Wetzel said that Trump posed a threat to European security and called for European unity to weather the next four years. In an essay laced with hyperbole, he wrote:
“Europeans will have to adapt to a new tone in dealing with America. Trump has made it clear in his speech that he will pursue a nationalist foreign policy, and his speech contained no reference to America’s allies. [Trump actually said: ‘We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones,’ and ‘We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world’]. His willingness to spend money on the defense of other countries is limited. He does not see the USA as a protective power of democratic values in the world; and he is the first U.S. president since the end of the Second World War who has openly expressed doubts about the value of European unity and the existence of NATO. At a time when Russia is trying to weaken the West by means of diplomatic, intelligence, and military means, it is an attitude that is a serious threat to united Europe.”
In Spain, geopolitical analyst Rafael Bardají wrote:
“President Trump promised that a new era is beginning today. In his inaugural speech he made it very clear that he despises Washington and hates the way the establishment has ruled the country up until now, defending its privileges at the expense of citizens. Yes, a speech that can be called populist, but one that nevertheless is true. Democracy, after all, emerged as the government of the people for the people, something that, at present, is far from being a reality in America as well as in Europe. The great social contract of liberal democracy, namely, growing prosperity and peace and security for the citizens, is no longer being fulfilled. This is due to the inability of our elites to deal with the [economic] crisis, due to their obsession with pacifism and due to the subordination of the interests of nationals in favor of immigrants.”
In Switzerland, Roger Köppel, editor-in-chief of Die Weltwoche, warned against efforts by European elites to belittle Trump. He wrote:
“Trump’s election was a healthy shock. The shock was necessary. Not only power cartels, but also worldviews are breaking down. This disruption is fruitful. The taboos of the last few years are now fully on the agenda: illegal immigration, Islam, the nonsense of open borders, the dysfunctional EU, the free movement of people, jobs, law and order. Trump’s predecessors did not want to talk about it, but the majority of voters did. This is democracy.”
(Who selected Imam Mohamed Magid? Someone in the Trump organization or the religious leaders who organized the event? Somebody screwed up big time.
Here is a video of Magid’s brief appearance. Little was in English and it seemed fairly innocuous.
— DM)
Mohamed Magid is the Obama administration’s go-to guy for Muslim outreach and advise on international affairs and counterterrorism. He is a regular visitor to the White House (even when the administration wants to conceal it), attends important administration speeches on the US Middle East policy at the State Department, he counsels the Department of Justice to criminalize defamation of Islam, he entertains the deputy national security adviser at his DC-area mosque, and he serves on the Department of Homeland Security’s Countering Violent Extremism Working Group. He also advises the FBI and many other federal agencies.
He has also been profiled by Time Magazine and the Huffington Post has even dubbed him “America’s Imam“. His ubiquitous presence across the Obama administration undoubtedly makes him the most influential and sought after Muslim authority in the country.
**********************************
Faith Leaders For America Denounce Imam Mohamed Magid; Call On President Trump To Designate Magid’s Terrorist Muslim Brotherhood
Washington, D.C.- In his inaugural address yesterday, President Donald J. Trump powerfully pledged to “eradicate Radical Islamic Terrorism from the face of the earth.” Today, at the National Prayer Service in Washington, D.C., a prayer was offered by one of its most dangerous practitioners:Imam Mohamed Magid, a top leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States.
Mohamed Magid is the Imam of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS) mosque complex in Northern Virginia, one of the most Sharia-adherent and jihadist in the country. He was also for two terms, the president of the group that theU.S. government has established in courtas a Muslim Brotherhood front, the Islamic Society of North America. In fact, it is the largest Muslim Brotherhood organization in the country. (A partial dossier of Magid’s jihadist ties, his ominous policy prescriptions and his access to and influence during the Obama administration is below.)
At a National Press Clubpress conferencelast Thursday, the newly formed Faith Leaders for America warned that the Muslim Brotherhood is part of a “death cult” of Sharia supremacism and expressed their strong support for Donald Trump’s declared determination to designate it a terrorist organization.
In ajoint statementissued on the eve of Mr. Trump’s inauguration, the 75-member multi-faith group of clerics and spiritual leaders told him: “We want you to know you have our prayerful support as you begin to counter jihad and protect Americans from Islamic terrorism. When you label the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, we support you.”
It is unclear how a top Muslim Brotherhood operative would be allowed to participate in an important public event organized for the new President of the United States. But Faith Leaders of America urges President Trump to make this the last event in which he is put in such company and that he moves as swiftly as possible to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as what it is: a terrorist organization.
Faith Leaders for Americais a dedicated group of clergy and leaders from various faith communities who share a common commitment to freedom—freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the other liberties guaranteed by our Constitution—along with a firm commitment to address the imminent threats to those freedoms.
[Magid was] born in northern Sudan in 1965, Mohamed Magid studied Islam under African Sunni scholars, one of whom was his own father, the Grand Mufti of Sudan. In 1987 Magid immigrated to the United States, where he took college courses in psychology and family counseling, and he taught classes on the Koran at Howard University in Washington, DC. In 1997 Magid became imam of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS), a mosque located in Sterling, Virginia. Soon thereafter, he became affiliated with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), first as its East Zone representative, then as vice president, and finally as president (a post to which he was elected in September 2010).
ISNA has a troubling history, however, and its leadership ranks beyond Mattson include people who date back to the group’s foundation by Muslim Brotherhood members. The organization grew out of the Muslim Students Association (MSA), which also was founded by Brotherhood members. The Brotherhood is an 80-year-old Egyptian movement that seeks to spread Shariah, or Islamic law, far and wide. Federal prosecutors included ISNA on a list of unindicted co-conspirators in the Hamas-financing prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF). ISNA is listed among “individuals/entities who are and/or were members of the US Muslim Brotherhood.” The trial ended with guilty verdicts on 108 counts in November 2008. Its conferences have featured rhetoric in support of terrorist groups and other radicalism. This continued at the 2009 convention, where panelists expressed extreme anti-Semitism and support for the terrorist group Hizballah.
Another group, the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA), which counts Magid as a member, published an article in 2008 written by Hatem al-Haj, a member of its fatwa committee, giving religious justification for not cooperating with authorities. Al-Haj wrote it was “impermissible” for Muslims to work with the FBI because of the “harm they inflict on Muslims…The AMJA issued a fatwa in August 2011 stating that zakat could be used to “support legitimate Jihad activities.”
As investigative journalist and counter-terrorism expertPatrick Poolereported in PJMedia in 2012, Magid had tremendous access to and influence during the Brotherhood-friendly Obama presidency:
Mohamed Magid is the Obama administration’s go-to guy for Muslim outreach and advise on international affairs and counterterrorism. He is a regular visitor to the White House (even when the administration wants to conceal it), attends important administration speeches on the US Middle East policy at the State Department, he counsels the Department of Justice to criminalize defamation of Islam, he entertains the deputy national security adviser at his DC-area mosque, and he serves on the Department of Homeland Security’s Countering Violent Extremism Working Group. He also advises the FBI and many other federal agencies.
He has also been profiled by Time Magazine and the Huffington Post has even dubbed him “America’s Imam“. His ubiquitous presence across the Obama administration undoubtedly makes him the most influential and sought after Muslim authority in the country.
Former Department of Homeland Security counter-terrorism officialPhilip Haneytold the Senate Judiciary Committee last July that Magid was one of the Muslim Brotherhood-tied individuals that had a key advisory role in the Obama DHS:
…In the Spring of 2010, at least six individuals with known affiliations to MB front groups, including Omar Alomari (MAS and several other MB-linked organizations),Mohamed Magid (ISNA), Mohamed Elibiary (HLF leaders), Dahlia Mogahed (CAIR, ISNA, MAS & MPAC), Nadia Roumani (American Muslim Civic Leadership Institute AMCLI), and Los Angeles Deputy Mayor Arif Alikhan (MPAC & the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California ISCSC), were appointed to the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Working Group, which was convened under the authority of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC).”
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
Recent Comments