Muslim Brotherhood | WarSclerotic

Posted tagged ‘Muslim Brotherhood’

Erdogan’s true ambitions

November 24, 2016

Erdogan’s true ambitions, Israel Hayom, Dr. Ephraim Herrera, November 24, 2016

(Please see also, Turkey’s Brain Drain — DM)

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s stances have always approximated those of the Muslim Brotherhood, and, in keeping with that, he protects them. Over the last year, he has strongly condemned the death sentence against ousted Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi. He said: “Morsi is the president of Egypt, not [current Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah] el-Sissi.” Hamas representatives feel at home in Turkey. As early as 2012, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh was given a royal welcome by Erdogan and the Turkish foreign minister, and Turkey vowed to work toward having Hamas removed from Western terrorist organization blacklists. So his statement to Israeli journalist Ilana Dayan this week, saying that Hamas is not a terrorist organization, is not surprising at all.

In 2009, Erdogan stormed out of a Davos World Economic Forum panel while hurling blame at late President Shimon Peres: “When it comes to killing, you know well how to kill,” he said. Last summer, Erdogan hosted Hamas political leader Khaled Mashaal, further proof of the total cooperation between Turkey and the terrorist organization that controls the Gaza Strip. It appears that it was from Hamas’ office in Istanbul that the cruel murders of three Israeli teenagers near Hebron in 2014 were planned as well as the murder of the Henkin couple last year. Hamas is grateful to the Turkish president. Moreover, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood (to which Hamas belongs), sees Erdogan as the next caliph of the Muslim world, the one who will lead Islam’s rule over the entire world.

He has said the following in media interviews: “The Union of Muslim Scholars declares that the caliphate must be established in Istanbul, because it is the [historical] capital of the caliphates. … The new Turkey brings together religion and state, old and new, Arab and non-Arab and unites the ummah [global Muslim community] in Africa, Asia, Europe, the United States and everywhere. The man who is bringing this about in Turkey is Recep Tayyip Erdogan. … He is the leader that knows his God, knows himself, knows his people, knows the ummah and knows the world. It is up to you to stand by his side, to pledge allegiance to him and to tell him: ‘Step forward.'”

In light of this, it is no wonder that Erdogan’s opinions on Israel perfectly line up with the Muslim Brotherhood’s stance, which is not bound by logic. For them, Israel behaves toward the Palestinians the same way that Hitler behaved toward the Jews in the Holocaust. It’s also no wonder that “Mein Kampf” is a best-seller in Turkey.

Turkey belongs to NATO and appears to be a moderate state. However, anyone who follows Erdogan’s policies will see that he succeeded, following the failed coup, in cruelly suppressing any domestic opposition, while firing tens of thousands of state employees, imprisoning journalists, shutting down opposition media outlets and violently fighting the Kurds.

Europe, in its innocence, cooperates with Turkey, which committed to stopping the waves of Muslim immigration to Europe. But the price tag set by Erdogan is high and dangerous: visa-free entry permits to Europe for Turkish citizens. If this agreement comes to fruition, the number of Turkish Muslims living in Western Europe is expected to grow quickly. It has been estimated that there are between 2 million and 2.5 million Turks living in Germany and another 2 million altogether in France, Holland, Britain and Austria. It seems they have more to lose than to gain.

The lesson for Israel is clear: Beware.

Categories: Caliphate, Erdogan, Europe, Hamas, Israel, Muslim Brotherhood, NATO, Turkey, Turkey - visa free travel, Turkey and human rights, Turkey post-coup
Tags: Caliphate, Erdogan, Europe, Hamas, Israel, Muslim Brotherhood, Nato, Turkey, Turkey - visa free travel, Turkey and human rights, Turkey post-coup

Comments: Be the first to comment

Egypt’s parliament responds to UK Commons’ ‘defence of political Islam’

November 23, 2016

Egypt’s parliament responds to UK Commons’ ‘defence of political Islam’, Ahram on Line, Gamal Essam El-Din, November 21, 2016

The Egyptian parliament’s foreign affairs committee said its report aims to expose Europe and the UK’s false views on “political Islam”

“The UK parliament report ignores – either on purpose or due to a lack of knowledge about historical facts – that since it was established in the first third of the previous century the Muslim Brotherhood has been responsible for spreading the radical Islamic ideology upon which all terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaida, ISIS, Hamas, Ezzeddin Al-Qassam, Al-Nusra Front and Ansar Beit Al-Maqdis were based,” said the report, adding that “most of the leaders of these terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaida’s current leader Ayman Al-Zawahri were once members of Muslim Brotherhood.”

“This group is the godfather of all jihadist and Salafist ideologies which dream of resurrecting the state of the caliphate against the infidel West,” said the report.

***************************

A 10-page report issued by the Egyptian parliament’s foreign affairs committee on Sunday launched a scathing attack on EU and UK politicians and MPs who defend “political Islam.”

The report, issued in response to a 7 November UK House of Commons’ foreign affairs committee’s report on the Muslim Brotherhood and political Islam, said it does not aim to defend the Egyptian government’s security and legal measures against the Brotherhood group and its affiliated militant and terrorist organizations.

“Our report reflects our responsibility as elected MPs to stand against a group which seized its one year in power to turn Egypt into a religious state and show the world the true meaning of “political Islam,” said the report.

It added that the “Muslim Brotherhood tried to steal history and turn the Arab world’s first civilian state into a theocratic state that is hostile to human civilization and the values of freedom, equality and citizenship.”

The report said “if Europe and the West are really keen to stem the tide of religious terrorism and the political hijacking of Islam, they should correct their understanding of all political Islam movements which claim they have a licence from God to implement his laws on earth and impose the state of the caliphate on the world .”

Ahmed Said, head of the Egyptian foreign affairs committee, told reporters Sunday that Egypt’s parliament deplores the UK report’s inclusion of a number of horrible lies.

“Our committee’s report aims to expose these lies. We intend to send it to the Egyptian ambassadors in England and Germany to stand against the attempts of several politicians and MPs in these two countries to polish the image of political Islam ,” the report said.

Said said “we know from history that Europe was able to move ahead and achieve progress only after it made a separation between religion and politics.”

“So we are surprised by the new generation of European radical liberals and progressives who defend political Islam and thereby give cover for Islamist movements which claim victimhood to spread across Europe and create a fertile ground for Islamist radicals there,” said Said.

The report said the UK parliament’s report offered a very artificial interpretation of “political Islam.”

“We wonder how a parliament that was based on separating religion from politics approves that a country like Egypt be governed by a theocratic state,” said the report, adding that “this is a setback from all the democratic and liberal ideals which formed the foundation of European civilization.”

The report said that “the UK parliament made a very artificial and marginal differentiation between Islamist movements that exploit democracy to reach power on the one hand, and Islamist movements that seek the path of violence and armed jihad to impose their radical ideology on societies, on the other.”

“All studies that have been conducted on political Islam movements show that there are no essential differences among them and that they all seek one objective – that is trying to impose a strict code of Islam and Islamic Sharia law on the world, and to launch an armed Jihad against ‘infidel rulers’ everywhere,” argued the report.

“In other words,” the report added, “these groups want to Islamise the entire world and they only differ on when and how these objectives should be implemented,” said the report.

“While a group like the Muslim Brotherhood shows the face of artificial Islamic moderation to gain ground in the West and infiltrate societies there, other groups seek the road of violence. Each complements the other,” said the report.

The report described the Muslim Brotherhood “as the mother of all jihadist and Salafist movements.”

“This group is the godfather of all jihadist and Salafist ideologies which dream of resurrecting the state of the caliphate against the infidel West,” said the report.

“We doubt that UK politicians or MPs have any books about the ideological basis of this group, which is highly hostile to the West and what they describe as its “liberal and infidel culture,” said the report.

To press its case, the report reviews a number of political assassinations which the Muslim Brotherhood has carried out since it was established by its leader Hassan Al-Banna in 1928.

The second part of the response accuses the UK report of making “a big mistake” by drawing a comparison between the experience of Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Tunisia.

“The Media and politicians in the West always like to portray Tunisia as the democratic, inclusive model in the Middle East,” said the report, adding that “this is a big mistake because facts show that Tunisia has become a fertile ground for Islamist jihadists who spread extremism and terrorism in France and Europe and that more than 1,000 Tunisians — the greatest number from any Arab country — a have joined the IS group.”

“Doesn’t this show that the Muslim Brotherhood ideology was behind the transformation of Tunisia into a breeding ground for jihadists,” wondered the report, adding that “not to mention that Tunisia is a small country – with 11 million people – but Egypt is a country with 90 million and the birthplace of the Muslim Brotherhood, which exploited political tolerance over eight decades to create a wide network of businesses and secret armed militias.”

“The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt owns banks, charity organizations and receives huge donations from wealthy sympathisers in the Arabian Gulf and throughout the Islamic world,” said the report.

The report also argued that the Muslim Brotherhood in Tunisia accepted democracy only for tactical reasons. “After they saw how millions in Egypt revolted against their mother group, they decided to backtrack only for tactical reasons,” said the report.

The report’s third section is devoted to explaining the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology and internal structure “which is highly hostile to all democratic values.”

“Their ideology is based on strict obedience to the group’s supreme guide, not to mention that its main ideologues, such as Sayyid Qutb, were the ones who invented the jihadist ideology which states that “democracy goes against the rule of God and Islamic Sharia,” said the report.

The report also reviews in detail “the one year of the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.”

“They exploited the collapse of (former president) Hosni Mubarak’s ruling party to exclude all civilian political forces from power and impose their rule on the country. When millions revolted against them and expelled them from power on 30 June, 2013, they resorted to claims of victimhood again, only to find an ear in the UK and its parliament,” said the report, insisting that “Egyptians stand firm against the rule of ‘the supreme guide’ and will not allow their country to become a religious state.”

“Egyptians are in a battle of life and death against this group, which is the mother of all radical Islam movements,” said the report.

The report also said that many of those who implemented terrorist attacks against the US on 11 September, 2001 received training at the hands of old and veteran Muslim Brotherhood leaders.

The report spotlights what it calls the Muslim Brotherhood’s “empowerment ideology” which seeks to Islamise the entire world in a gradual way.

The report urges the UK parliament and politicians to review “the dark history of the Muslim Brotherhood” and to verify their information about it “instead of issuing distorted reports about political Islam.”

“While the world has become increasingly aware of the dangers of all radical Islam movements, we are surprised that the UK MPs and politicians still live in a coma, insistent not only on polishing the image of these movements, but also propagating the biggest lie: that it is a peaceful and moderate movement,” the report concludes.

The report includes a great number of details about the yearlong rule of former president Mohamed Morsi and how the Brotherhood exploited this year to isolate all political forces.

“For all those who believe in the West that Islamist movements can be integrated into the political process of Arab countries, we offer this bitter experience to put an end to this lie,” said the report.

The UK House of Commons’ foreign affairs committee released its report on 7 November, commenting on the findings and conclusions of a December 2015 review by the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) on the Muslim Brotherhood.

The 2015 FCO report concluded that the group has long maintained a dubious position vis-à-vis the use of violence and terrorism to achieve political change.

The UK parliament committee said that the FCO review “undermined confidence in the impartiality of the FCO’s work” due to the “misguided appointment” of Sir John Jenkins, the UK ambassador to Saudi Arabia, to head the review effort.

Categories: Britain, Britain and Islam, British Parliament, Egypt, Egypt's Parliament, Muslim Brotherhood, Political Islam
Tags: Britain, Britain and Islam, British Parliament, Egypt, Egypt's Parliament, Muslim Brotherhood, Political Islam

Comments: Be the first to comment

Clueless Clapper Calls It Quits

November 18, 2016

Clueless Clapper Calls It Quits, Front Page Magazine, Robert Spencer, November 18, 2016

While he was Director of National Intelligence, Clapper made every American less safe. He epitomized the denial and willful ignorance that characterized the Obama administration’s approach to the jihad threat. In this time of swamp-draining, Clueless Clapper is leaving the stage not a moment too soon.

************************

Barack Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, submitted his letter of resignation on Wednesday, and the next day he told the House Select Committee on Intelligence that doing so “felt pretty good….I have 64 days left and I’d have a pretty hard time with my wife going past that.” Why? Is Mrs. Clapper opposed to intelligence policies based on politically correct fantasies and willful ignorance?

Nothing epitomizes more perfectly the Obama Administration’s consistent refusal to come to grips with the reality of the global jihad than Clapper’s embarrassing tenure as Director of National Intelligence.

One incident that took place in December 2010, four months after Clapper took office, epitomized his abject incompetence. British authorities arrested twelve jihadists who had been planning to set off bombs in a variety of locations; that same day, Clapper appeared on Diane Sawyer’s ABC show, on which Sawyer said to him that she expected he must be very busy with the London arrests. Clapper looked confused, and admitted that he had no idea what she was talking about. Arrests? A terror plot?

Had Sawyer been conducting a man-on-the-street interview, and Clapper was in reality the befuddled accountant he appears to be, he might be excused for having no idea that a large-scale anti-terror operation had just been carried out in London. But this was the Director of National Intelligence, and he was far less informed and up to speed on the situation than was Sawyer herself, or probably an entire legion of befuddled accountants.

Obama’s team ran interference for Clapper, claiming essentially that Clapper had been so involved with the London arrests that he was too preoccupied to answer Sawyer’s question properly, but that his display of cluelessness was no indication of…cluelessness.

But it was. Clapper showed that again in February 2011, when he claimed at the height of the Egyptian “Arab Spring” that the Muslim Brotherhood was “largely secular,” a claim as absurd as it was inaccurate. Although the subsequent torrent of ridicule compelled the Obama camp to issue a correction, the subtext of Clapper’s statement was clear: the Obama Administration had no problem with Muslim Brotherhood rule in Egypt, and was not only going to do nothing to stop it, but was going actively to enable it.

The Brotherhood that Obama worked so assiduously to aid is dedicated, of course, to establishing the rule of Islamic law not only in Egypt, but everywhere that it possibly can. And if that rather commonplace fact was too much for Clapper and his boss, they could have resorted to a much simpler indicator of the religious foundation of the Brotherhood’s political program: its name. It isn’t, after all, called the Arab Nationalist Brotherhood, or the Egyptian Brotherhood, but rather the Muslim Brotherhood. Its name itself shows that it is no more secular than the Christian Brothers religious order.

Clapper also appeared woefully (if not willfully) ignorant of the Brotherhood’s pro-Sharia agenda, and no doubt completely oblivious to the implications for the United States and the world of an Egypt governed by Islamic law.

There was, of course, more. In March 2011, Clapper told Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) that Russia and China represented the greatest “mortal threat” to the United States.

Russia and China? Not North Korea and Iran, or the forces of the global jihad that grew steadily more aggressive while Clapper was Director of National Intelligence? Clapper’s statement sounded like a Rip Van Winkle who had been sleeping for twenty years or longer, and nobody had gotten around to clueing him in to the fact that the Cold War was over.

Had Clapper, a retired lieutenant general in the Air Force and longtime intelligence professional, made any study in the area of national intelligence since 1985? Was he aware that the world situation has drastically changed since 1985? Had he had any kind of thought at all since 1985?

James Clapper is perhaps the most abysmally ignorant and unqualified individual ever to have held a position of so much responsibility. While he was Director of National Intelligence, Clapper repeatedly demonstrated that he had no idea about the nature of the world today, no sense of the genuine threats that face the United States, and no clue as to what to do about those threats.

Yet instead of firing him, Obama continually made excuses for him, explaining away his idiotic remarks, and running interference for him with the international media. What Clapper did to merit such solicitude is unclear, but the stakes were far too high for the nonsense and fantasy that Clapper purveyed. While he was Director of National Intelligence, Clapper made every American less safe. He epitomized the denial and willful ignorance that characterized the Obama administration’s approach to the jihad threat. In this time of swamp-draining, Clueless Clapper is leaving the stage not a moment too soon.

Categories: Fantasy Islam, Intelligence community, Intelligence failures, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, James Clapper, Muslim Brotherhood
Tags: Fantasy Islam, Intelligence Community, Intelligence failures, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, James Clapper, Muslim Brotherhood

Comments: Be the first to comment

Steve Bannon and Keith Ellison: Do the Democrats Really Care about Anti-Semitism?

November 15, 2016

Steve Bannon and Keith Ellison: Do the Democrats Really Care about Anti-Semitism? Front Page Magazine, Robert Spencer, November 15, 2016

(Please see also, The Ellison Angle.– DM)

When is anti-Semitism not anti-Semitism? When it comes from the Left, of course.

President-elect Trump has enraged the establishment media by choosing Steven K. Bannon as his chief strategist, because Bannon, they claim on the flimsiest of evidence, is a white supremacist and an anti-Semite. Meanwhile, that same media is hailing Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) for announcing his candidacy for Chairman of the Democratic National Committee – despite Ellison’s very real links to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, two groups that are outdone by no one in anti-Semitism.

“A chorus of critics took to Twitter,” said the New York Times, “to lament what they said was a frightening normalization of the fringe views that Mr. Bannon promoted as the chairman of Breitbart News. The site has for years given voice to anti-Semitic, racist and white nationalist ideology.”

The evidence? Slim to none. As David Horowitz pointed out Monday, the source for the claim that Bannon is anti-Semitic is “a one sentence claim from an angry ex-wife in divorce court no less, that Bannon didn’t want their kids to go to school with Jews.” Horowitz noted in response that Bannon had wanted to produce a Horowitz biopic: “I find that particularly amusing since Bannon wanted to make a film to celebrate this Jew’s life.”

Horowitz also noted that CNN hit Bannon over “a headline at Breitbart.com calling Bill Kristol a ‘renegade Jew.’” Surely that proves Bannon’s anti-Semitism, right? Wrong. Said Horowitz: “In fact, neither Breitbart nor Bannon is responsible for that statement. A Jew is. I wrote the article, which was neither requested nor commissioned by Breitbart. And I wrote the headline: ‘Bill Kristol, Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew,’” because “Kristol and his friends betrayed the Republican Party, betrayed the American people, and betrayed the Jews when he set out to undermine Trump and elect the criminal Hillary Clinton. Obama and Hillary are supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood, the organization that launched the Arab drive to destroy Israel and push its Jews into the sea (that was their slogan).”

Joel B. Pollak, senior editor-at-large at Breitbart News and an Orthodox Jew, declared: “I have worked with Stephen K. Bannon, President-elect Donald Trump’s new chief strategist and senior counselor, for nearly six years at Breitbart News. I can say, without hesitation, that Steve is a friend of the Jewish people and a defender of Israel, as well as being a passionate American patriot and a great leader.”

Meanwhile, the same Democrats who are howling about Bannon are applauding Ellison’s announcement that he is running for DNC Chair, despite the abundant evidence of Ellison’s links to anti-Semitic groups. Ellison has spoken at a convention of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). Yet ISNA has actually admitted its ties to Hamas, which styles itself the Palestinian arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Justice Department actually classified ISNA among entities “who are and/or were members of the US Muslim Brotherhood.”

It gets worse. In 2008, Ellison accepted $13,350 from the Muslim American Society (MAS) to go on a pilgrimage to Mecca. The Muslim American Society is a Muslim Brotherhood organization: “In recent years, the U.S. Brotherhood operated under the name Muslim American Society, according to documents and interviews. One of the nation’s major Islamic groups, it was incorporated in Illinois in 1993 after a contentious debate among Brotherhood members.” That’s from the Chicago Tribune in 2004, in an article that is now carried on the Muslim Brotherhood’s English-language website, Ikhwanweb.

Also, the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) raised large amounts of for Ellison’s first campaign, and he has spoken at numerous CAIR events. Yet CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case — so named by the Justice Department. CAIR officials have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups.

Hamas has declared: “Killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah.” Ellison has spoken before several groups that have ties to Hamas, and has accepted money from a Muslim Brotherhood group; Hamas styles itself the Muslim Brotherhood for Palestine. Does Keith Ellison also, then, think that “killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah”? No establishment media “journalist” would ever dream of asking him that question, but it’s a fair one: Hamas repeatedly demonstrates genuine and murderous anti-Semitism, and Ellison has repeatedly shown himself willing and even eager to associate himself with Hamas-linked groups.

That’s the real story of anti-Semitism in American politics this week. But the media propagandists are most certainly not going to pause in their hysteria over Trump and Bannon to take any notice of it. Their hypocrisy is obvious, their dishonesty unrelenting, and their moral authority absolutely nil.

Categories: Antisemitism in America, Democrat establishment, Democrat National Committee, Democrat Party, Hamas, Islamists in America, Keith Ellison, Muslim Brotherhood, Steven K. Bannon
Tags: Antisemitism in America, Democrat establishment, Democrat National Committee, Democrat Party, Hamas, Islamists in America, Keith Ellison, Muslim Brotherhood, Steven K. Bannon

Comments: Be the first to comment

Trump to Designate Muslim Brotherhood as Terror Org.

November 13, 2016

Trump to Designate Muslim Brotherhood as Terror Org., Clarion Project, November 13, 2016

President-elect Donald Trump (Photo: © Reuters); Nihad Awad, founder and executive director of CAIR (Photo: © Getty Images)

Donald Trump will work to pass legislation designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, said Walid Phares, a foreign policy advisor for the president-elect.

Speaking to the Egyptian news outlet Youm7, Phares said the legislation, which was already approved by the House Judiciary Committee earlier this year and referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was held up due to the Obama administration’s support of the group.

Clarion Project spearheaded a campaign to educate legislators and move the bill forward over the past year. The bill currently has bipartisan support.

See below for a list of senators and representatives and their stance on the bill and what you can do to move the bill forward.

In November of 2015, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) introduced the bill, which identifies three Brotherhood entities in the U.S. including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

“We have to stop pretending that the Brotherhood are not responsible for the terrorism they advocate and finance … We have to see it for what it is: a key international organization dedicated to waging violent jihad,” Cruz told the Washington Free Beacon at the time.

You can read Clarion’s thorough rebuttal of the Brotherhood’s purported “non-violence” policy here.

The bill included is an unprecedented opportunity to educate members of Congress about the Muslim Brotherhood‘s involvement in terrorism. It reviews the Brotherhood’s terrorist history and how it is banned by the governments of Egypt, Russia, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Syria. Egypt released videos showing the Brotherhood’s involvement in terrorism and the Egyptian government’s website warns about the Brotherhood lobby in the United States.

The bill also outlines how the Brotherhood is linked to CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT).

The U.S. designated the Brotherhood’s Palestinian wing—Hamas— in 1997, but the group a whole is allowed to operate in the U.S.

You can tell your representatives to support the legislation in less than one minute by using our online form.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Members Without a Stated Position on S2230

Barbara Boxer (D-CA)

John Barrasso (R-WY)

Ben Cardin (D-MD); Ranking Member

Christopher Coons (D-DE)

Bob Corker (R-TN); Chairman

Jeff Flake (R-AZ)

Cory Gardner (R-CO)

Johnny Isakson (R-GA)

Tim Kaine (D-VA)

Edward Markey (D-WA)

Bob Menendez (D-NJ)

Chris Murphy (D-CT)

Rand Paul (R-KY)

David Perdue (R-GA)

James Risch (R-ID)

Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)

Tom Udall (D-NM)

Senators in Support of the Act

Ted Cruz (R-TX)	Original introducer of legislation
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)	Foreign Relations Committee member
Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Representatives in Support of HR3892 (Cosponsors and/or Voted Yay)

Mike Bishop (R-MI)	Diane Black (R-TN)
Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)	Jim Bridenstine (R-OK)
Ken Buck (R-CO)	Ken Calvert (R-CA)
Steve Chabot (R-OH)	Jason Chaffetz (R-UT)
Curt Clawson (R-FL)	Doug Collins (R-GA)
Charlie W. Dent (R-PA)	Ron DeSantis (R-FL)
Scott DesJerlais (R-TN)	Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL)
Blake Farenthold (R-TX)	J. Randy Forbes (R-VA)
Trent Franks (R-AZ)	Louie Gohmert (R-TX)
Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)	Trey Gowdy (R-SC)
Kay Granger (R-TX)	Vicky Hartzler (R-MO)
Darrell Issa (R-CA)	Bill Johnson (R-OH)
Jim Jordan (R-OH)	David P. Joyce (R-OH)
Steve King (R-IA)	Barry Loudermilk (R-GA)
Tom Marino (R-PA)	John L. Mica (R-FL)
Steven Palazzo (R-MS)	Colin C. Peterson (D-MN)
Ted Poe (R-TX)	Mike Pompeo (R-KS)
Bill Posey (R-FL)	John Ratcliffe (R-TX)
Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)	Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)
David Rouzer (R-NC)	Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI)
Lamar Smith (R-TX)	Steve Stivers (R-OH)
David A. Trott (R-MI)	Mimi Walters (R-CA)
Randy Weber (R-TX)	Mike Kelly (R-PA)
Duncan Hunter (R-CA)	Candice S. Miller (R-MI)
James B. Renacci (R-OH)	Daniel Webster (R-FL)
Peter J. Roskam (R-IL)	Tim Huelskamp (R-KS
Charlie J. Fleischmann (R-TN)	Jeff Duncan (R-SC)
Dave Brat (R-VA)	Todd Rokita (R-IN)
Kenny Marchant (R-TX)	Robert Pittenger (R-NC)
Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS)	Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC)
Rep. Gene Green (D-TX)	Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-AR)
Rep. Charles W. Boustany, Jr. (R-LA)

Representatives Opposed to the Act

Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA)	Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA)
Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN)	Rep. John Conyers (D-MI)
Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-WA)	Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL)
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX)	Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY)
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)	Rep. Pedro Pierluisi (D-Puerto Rico)

Categories: CAIR, Muslim Brotherhood, President Elect Trump, U.S. Congress
Tags: CAIR, Muslim Brotherhood, President Elect Trump, U.S. Congress

Comments: 1 Comment

Hillary gave visa to Egyptian jihadist to visit State Department, White House and lobby for jihad bomb plotter’s release

November 5, 2016

Hillary gave visa to Egyptian jihadist to visit State Department, White House and lobby for jihad bomb plotter’s release, Jihad Watch, Christine Williams, November 5, 2016

Hani Noor Eldin was on a “divine mission” to negotiate the release of the Blind Sheikh, who wasn’t simply a member of the terror group Gamaa Islamiya — a designated terror group since the Clinton era — but its preeminent spiritual leader, as well as the ringleader of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing plot.

As outrageous as it was to host Noor Eldin at the State Department and also to the White House, the Obama team had no intention of stopping rubbing shoulders with influential jihadists. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said to expect more members of “designated foreign terrorist organizations to visit the United States” to have discussions with the State Department. She passed off her hollow support for terrorists as a way of doing business with a country considered an ally of the US, instead of what she should have done: bar Eldin from entering the country and showcase America as a having no tolerance for jihad terrorism.

Gamaa Islamiya, which translates to “the Islamic Group,” is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. It is Egypt’s largest jihadist organization and also has a presence outside Egypt. The group has targeted foreign tourists in Egypt, deeming them to represent “the seeping of Western characteristics, such as secularism, into Egyptian culture.”

The Washington Times has detailed Obama’s backing of the Muslim Brotherhood. Obama has attempted to justify the Brotherhood as “a moderate alternative to more violent Islamist groups like al Qaeda and the Islamic State.” Hillary Clinton also paid an official visit to Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood President Mohamed Morsi when he first took power, and she offered him the “strong support” of Washington.

Egypt’s current President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, who is anti-Muslim Brotherhood, called for a “religious revolution” after visiting a Coptic Cathedral and he rightly declared about Obama:

You left the Egyptians. You turned your back on the Egyptians, and they won’t forget that.

Former CIA agent Claire Lopez stated that America has switched sides in the war on terror under President Obama. Lopez noted that the war on terror should have been about keeping the West “free of Shariah”; but now “the Muslim Brotherhood has thoroughly infiltrated the Obama administration and other branches of the federal government.”

“Hillary Clinton Gave Visa to Egyptian TERRORIST to Visit State Department, White House to Lobby for Blind Sheikh Release”, by Patrick Poole, PJ Media, November 2, 2016:

In June 2012, Hillary Clinton’s State Department issued a visa to enter the United States to Hani Noor Eldin — an avowed member of the Egyptian terror group Gamaa Islamiya.

Gamaa Islamiya had been designated by the U.S. as a terror organization since October 1997 during the Clinton administration.

According to U.S. law, Eldin’s request for a visa must be denied.

But not only was Eldin allowed into the U.S., he was escorted into Hillary’s State Department where he met with Deputy Secretary of State William Burns and Under Secretary Robert Hormats. Eldin was then received at the White House by Denis McDonough, who was Obama’s deputy national security advisor at the time, and is currently the White House chief of staff.

According to published reports, Eldin used these meetings as an opportunity to press Obama administration officials to release from federal prison the leader of his terror group, the “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman. Rahman is serving a life sentence for his leadership role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the planned follow-up “Day of Terror” plot targeting New York landmarks.

(That case was prosecuted by my friend and PJ Media colleague, former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy.)

Those meetings resulted in serious Obama administration discussions about transferring the blind sheikh back to Egypt, then under control of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi. Morsi had vowed to pressure the U.S. for the blind sheikh’s release while Eldin was in Washington, D.C.

The blind sheikh’s transfer was only stopped when members of Congress began asking about the deal. The possibility of his transfer was publicly denounced by former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who presided over the blind sheikh’s trial as a federal district court judge.

When Congress asked about Eldin’s visit to the U.S., then-Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano vowed that more foreign terrorists would be allowed in for such situations.

Questions were initially raised about how Eldin was allowed in the country and the details of his visit to Washington, D.C. when the story broke from reporter Eli Lake, who interviewed the terror group member. Eldin had no problem admitting he was a member of the banned Gamaa Islamiya:

It was supposed to be a routine meeting for Egyptian legislators in Washington, an opportunity for senior Obama administration officials to meet with new members of Egypt’s parliament and exchange ideas on the future of relations between the two countries.

Instead, the visit this week looks like it’s turning into a political fiasco. Included in the delegation of Egyptian lawmakers was Hani Nour Eldin, who, in addition to being a newly elected member of parliament, is a member of the Gamaa Islamiya, or the Egyptian Islamic Group — a U.S.-designated terrorist organization. The group was banned under former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, and is now a recognized Islamist political party. Its spiritual leader, Omar Abdel Rahman — also known as the “blind sheik” — was convicted in 1995 of plotting attacks on New York City landmarks and transportation centers, and is serving a life sentence in a North Carolina federal prison.

Eldin, according to his Facebook page, was born in 1968 and resides in Suez, near the canal that unites the Mediterranean Sea with the Red Sea. He was arrested in 1993 on terrorism charges after members of Gamaa Islamiya got into a shoot out with Egyptian security officials at a mosque. He has proclaimed his innocence in the shooting and says he was arrested because of his political activism against Mubarak.

In an interview, Eldin confirmed he is a member of Gamaa Islamiya.By U.S. law, that means he would be denied a visa to enter the country. Nonetheless, he says, he got a visa from the State Department. A State Department spokesman said, “We have no information suggesting that he or anyone else in the delegation is a member of the Egyptian Islamic Group.”

The State Department blamed the visit on the U.S. government-funded Wilson Center, which then turned around and blamed the State Department:

While in Washington, Eldin also visited the Wilson Center, a think tank that specializes in foreign policy issues. A State Department spokesman said the delegation was “invited to Washington by the Wilson Center. I refer you to the Wilson Center for any additional information on their visit.”

A spokesman for the Wilson Center, however, said the delegation was selected by the State Department. “We can’t speak to the background of Eldin,” said Drew Sample the media relations coordinator for the Wilson Center….

Categories: Blind Sheikh, Department of State, Hillary Clinton and Islamists, Muslim Brotherhood
Tags: Blind Sheikh, Department of State, Hillary Clinton and Islamists, Muslim Brotherhood

Comments: Be the first to comment

On Eve Of U.S. Election: Egyptian Regime Favors Trump, Opposition Favors Clinton

November 5, 2016

On Eve Of U.S. Election: Egyptian Regime Favors Trump, Opposition Favors Clinton, MEMRI, Y. Graff and H. Varulkar*, November 4, 2016

(Please see also, El-Sissi against the Arab world. — DM)

Introduction

In the lead-up to the U.S. presidential election, it appears that the Egyptian regime under President ‘Abd Al-Fattah Al-Sisi prefers Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton as the next president of the U.S. After Al-Sisi met with both presidential candidates in September 2016, his spokesman, ‘Alaa Youssef, said that Egypt regarded both of them equally and that “the [last] word in the U.S. presidential election will be said by the American voters, and we have nothing to do with it.”[1] However, despite this statement, there are clear indications that the Egyptian administration favors Trump over Clinton, especially in light of what is perceived in Egypt as the latter’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and her disapproval of Al-Sisi’s ouster of the Muhammad Mursi regime on June 30, 2013. This preference of the Egyptian regime is reflected in statements by Al-Sisi and his associates, as well as in reports and op-eds published in the Egyptian government press.

During his visit to the U.S. to attend the September 20, 2016 UN General Assembly, Al-Sisi met with both Hillary and Trump. However, the mood in his meeting with Clinton seemed formal and restrained; moreover, the Egyptians limited the media’s access to it (reporters were allowed to attend for only a few minutes and were forbidden to take pictures). Conversely, the mood of Al-Sisi’s meeting with Trump seemed open and friendly.

Reports on the meetings in the Egyptian and the global media stressed Trump’s positive stance towards the Egyptian regime versus Clinton’s more critical stance. For example, they emphasized that, during the brief part of the meeting attended by the media, Clinton had praised Egypt, but also implicitly criticized the state of human rights there, and said that she looked forward to talking about “the path we are taking in order to build up a new civil society, a new modern country that upholds the rule of law, that respects human rights and liberties.” Trump, on the other hand, did not bring up these issues in his meeting with the Egyptian president, but lavished praise on Egypt for its tough stance against terror and promised that, under a Trump administration, the U.S. would be “a loyal friend to Egypt,” not simply an ally.[2] Trump’s foreign policy advisor Walid Phares described the meeting between Al-Sisi and Trump as “historic” and noted that Trump was committed to “restoring the warmth to U.S.-Egypt relations, which are presently in a very difficult phase.” [3] Phares also claimed that in the meeting Trump had promised Al-Sisi to promote legislation in the U.S. to designate the MB a terrorist organization.[4]

Indications of Al-Sisi’s preference for Trump can be seen in his September 22, 2016 interview with CNN. In the interview, he said that Trump would no doubt make a strong leader, but when asked whether Clinton would make a good president, he replied evasively that “political parties in the United States would not allow candidates to reach that level unless they are qualified to lead a country the size of the United States of America.”[5]

As stated, the Egyptian regimes’ support for Trump and reservations about Clinton were also reflected in many op-eds published in the Egyptian press. The majority of articles in the government press expressed distaste for Clinton and warned that, in the case of a Clinton victory, Egypt and the entire region would face years of chaos and mounting terror. Some even predicted that a Clinton win would herald further deterioration in Egypt-U.S. relations, due to her insistence on interfering in Egypt’s affairs, such as human rights issues. These articles cited her support for the ouster of Hosni Mubarak and what they described as her positive stance towards the MB. It should be mentioned that, as early as 18 months ago, reports and op-eds in the government daily Al-Ahram have been claiming that Clinton’s personal aide, Huma Abedin, is a member of the MB and serves as Clinton’s liaison with the organization.[6] Conversely, only a minority of articles in the Egyptian press spoke negatively of Trump and/or expressed support for Clinton. Most of the ones that did were penned by senior MB official Gamal Heshmat and by journalists in the independent daily Al-Shurouq, which occasionally criticizes the regime.

This report will review the media discourse in Egypt for and against Trump and Clinton as president.

Pro-Regime Journalists: Clinton Is Bad For Egypt, Trump Is Better

In the days following Al-Sisi’s meetings with the two presidential candidates, the Egyptian government press published many articles and views by opinion-leaders and politicians expressing distaste for Clinton and hope for a Trump victory. For example, MP ‘Imad Gad, deputy-director of the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, said that Clinton had performed poorly as secretary of state and had caused problems for Egypt, and even called her a liar. Conversely, about Trump he said that “if elected president, he will uproot the MB spirit from the White House and purge the [U.S.] state department of it… Trump will never support the MB. A Trump victory will be best for the interest of the Middle East and of Egypt as a civil state.”[7] Pro-regime journalist Wael Al-Abrashi said on his show on Dream TV that Egyptians tend to support Trump as the next U.S. president despite his racism, because they hate his rival Clinton, who, he said, is known for her support for the MB.[8] On his show on Sada Al-Balad TV, Journalist Ahmed Moussa, likewise a regime supporter, complained that the U.S. media supports Clinton and ignores “that poor guy” Trump, and accused Clinton and U.S. President Obama of “rigging the election.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaYkWRlCbNw

After Al-Sisi returned from his U.S. visit, the editor of the government daily Al-Ahram, Muhammad ‘Abd Al-Hadi ‘Allam, published a detailed article about the president’s meetings with world leaders and the messages he had delivered at the UN General Assembly. Addressing Al-Sisi’s meetings with Trump, whom he described as “a strong candidate who has proved his eligibility to [be president] throughout the campaign,” he stressed the importance of the meeting and devoted two paragraphs to enumerating the terrorism-related issues on which the two men had agreed. He also claimed that Trump had told Al-Sisi that “the June 30 revolution [i.e., Al-Sisi’s ouster of Mursi] had saved not only Egypt but the entire world.” As for Al-Sisi’s meeting with Clinton, ‘Allam mentioned it but did not describe its content or say anything positive about the Democratic candidate.[9]

Editor for Al-Yawm Al-Sabi’ Daily: A Clinton Victory Will Be A Catastrophe For The Region And The World

Op-eds in the Egyptian media leveled harsh criticism at Hillary Clinton. Karim ‘Abd Al-Salam, the acting editor of the daily Al-Yawm Al-Sabi’, wrote in a September 21, 2016 article that if Clinton won she would continue the policy of the Obama administration, whose relations with Egypt have been marked by tension and disagreements, whereas Al-Sisi’s meeting with Trump indicated that the latter would focus on cooperation with Egypt in combating terror and extremism. He wrote: “President Al-Sisi met with the two U.S. presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. At first glance, and judging from news agency and press reports, the meeting with Hillary was restrained… Hillary Clinton made no clear statement regarding what her policy [towards Egypt] would be were she to be elected U.S. president. During the meeting, she settled for underlining the importance of strengthening bilateral relations… and other such diplomatic statements made for the record, which conceal more than they reveal.

“The president’s meeting with Republican candidate Trump was totally different. During the meeting, Trump largely agreed with the president’s plan for combating terrorism and for economic growth, and at its conclusion he issued statements of explicit future support for Egypt and its president. The Republican candidate stated that he would be a powerful friend and ally of Egypt in all areas, while reiterating his full support for Egypt’s efforts to combat terrorism and for economic and military cooperation…

“Trump focused on the one topic that unites Cairo and Washington: the struggle against the shared enemy of extremism and terrorism. [Trump] explicitly committed to work together with the Egyptian leadership in order to overcome this danger, while Clinton did not address [this issue at all], even though terrorist attacks have reached New York.

“What does this mean? It means that Clinton’s election as president would entail a continuation of the confusion, disagreement, and chaos of the Obama years. Her administration will also focus on the issue of creative chaos, and on the forging of new societies in the Middle East, and will work pressure Egypt by raising the issues of human, minority, and gay rights. [A Clinton administration will also strive] to prevent Cairo from protecting its regional surroundings and security depth in Libya, Sudan, and Syria – not to mention the support that her administration will provide to violent and extremist organizations, chiefly the Muslim Brotherhood and Jabhat Al-Nusra [sic, now Jabhat Fath Al-Sham].

“Therefore, we must be well prepared for the possibility that Hillary Clinton will take the reins of power, despite my personal assessment that Trump will win the presidency, because a Clinton victory would bring four more catastrophic years for the Arab region, Europe, and the U.S. as well!”[10]

Al-Sisi’s meeting with Trump in New York (image: Al-Ahram, Egypt, September 21, 2016)

Al-Ahram Editor: Clinton’s Interference In Egypt’s Affairs Is A Red Line

In a September 25, 2016 article in Al-Ahram, Muhammad Sabreen, a columnist for the daily and a member of its editorial board, reviewed the two candidates’ positions on Egypt, claiming that Trump focuses on the common ground with Egypt – namely the war on terror – whereas Clinton interferes in Egypt’s internal affairs, which Egyptians regard as a “red line”. He wrote: “I believe that Hillary Clinton and her Democratic camp are trying to bring back warmer [relations with Egypt] than existed under Obama, while attempting to blackmail [the Egyptian regime] into bringing the political Islam organizations into Egypt’s political arena. On the other hand, Trump and his campaign are making grand promises about the importance and necessity of [U.S.] cooperation with Egypt. In an important and meticulously planned message, he says that under his presidency, the U.S. would be a friend on which Egypt could rely…

“Trump [seeks] to develop relations to the point of partnership, and later alliance, with Egypt, and the question is why. The answer was provided by Dr. Walid Phares, Trump’s foreign policy advisor, who explained that ‘the challenge of terrorism and ideological extremism is common to both countries’… Phares goes even further and says that Trump would work to place the Muslim Brotherhood on the list of designated terrorist organizations, and furthermore that Trump and his people see ‘Egypt as the first line of defense against terrorism.’ Conversely, Clinton has reverted to talking about her aspiration ‘to build up a new civil society, a new modern country that upholds the rule of law, that respects human rights and liberties.’

“I believe that most Egyptians agree in principle with [the values of] ‘a modern and democratic civil state,’ but strongly oppose Washington’s interference in Egypt’s internal affairs, or [Washington’s] linking [U.S. military] aid or partnership [between the two countries] to any ‘engineering’ of Egypt’s domestic political arena [by the U.S.]. This is and has always been a red line for the Egyptians…”[11]

Al-Ahram Columnist: A Clinton Victory Will Strengthen MB, ISIS

Rania Hefny devoted her October 7 column in Al-Ahram to a diatribe against Clinton, whom she believes is likely to win the election, saying that her victory would strengthen the MB and ISIS. She wrote under the title “The Implications of a Clinton Presidential Victory”: “The foreign policy of the candidate with the highest chance of winning the presidential election, Hillary Clinton, will be far more inflexible than Obama’s. She believes that the world’s problems will be solved more quickly if the U.S. is involved in the solution. [If she is elected,] Libya and Iraq are expected to return to square one. Clinton’s leadership of the American political arena will arouse the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist organization and the statelet Qatar, as well as ISIS – in whose creation she participated – and the focus will be on exporting the conflict to many kingdoms such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Morocco. Beware, beware, beware…

“You would do well to remember that Hillary Clinton supported the escalation of the war in Afghanistan and pushed for the ongoing U.S. military presence in Iraq. She helped plan the attack on Libya, and encouraged Obama to bomb Syria without obtaining the support of the [UN] Security Council… It is known that every American president sees to Israel’s interest, and she has already stated that Israel’s security is non-negotiable. Do not be overly optimistic. Beware.”[12]

Al-Watan Columnist: Clinton Is Concerned About Human Rights Situation In Egypt While Ignoring Assad’s Crimes

In a September 28 column, Al-Watan columnist ‘Imad Al-Din Adib accused Clinton of employing a double standard because she demanded the ouster of former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak but took a feeble stance vis-à-vis Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, whose actions against his people are far worse than Mubarak’s were. He wrote: “The position of Ms. Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate for U.S. president, on Egypt’s domestic affairs is suspect and odd. Without getting into the dissemination of the well-known conspiracy theory regarding the ‘perpetual American wish to topple any national regime’ in Egypt, let us discuss our actual experience between January 25 and February 11, 2011.

“During the January 2011 revolution [against the Mubarak regime], Ms. Clinton was U.S. secretary of state, and it was she who advised the White House to pressure president Hosni Mubarak to immediately relinquish power, [saying] that it was unavoidable… Thus pressure was applied to president Mubarak… This sent a reassuring message to the rebels, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the military that Washington is withdrawing support for its old friend Hosni Mubarak and his regime… The astonishing thing is that the Americans did all this with Mubarak, yet since March 2011, that is, since the start of the popular rebellion in Syrian Deraa, they have not stated unequivocally that ‘Assad must leave now, and now means today!!!’

“They have not demanded [this] of Assad, who has murdered nearly 400,000 of his own people, wounded two million civilians, and expelled 11 million openly, in broad daylight! Washington has not demanded that Bashar Al-Assad of the barrel bombs, who uses missiles against civilians and chemical weapons against women, children, and the elderly, leave at once. The most it demanded in this matter was expressed in Obama’s recent UN statement, that it is unthinkable that Assad will play any role during the transitional period. Mubarak was warned to leave – but Bashar Al-Assad never was!

“What sort of standards is Washington adopting, and what [sort of standards] were implemented by Ms. Hillary when she was secretary of state? Washington bemoans the human rights situation in Egypt, but not the crushing human destruction in Syria! What standards does Ms. Hillary have?!”[13]

Al-Sisi’s meeting with Clinton in New York (image: Al-Yawm Al-Sabi’, Egypt, September 20, 2016)

MB Official, Independent Journalists: Clinton Is Better Than The Racist Trump

Conversely, an MB official, as well as journalists for the independent daily Al-Shurouq, which tends to be critical of the regime, expressed distaste for Trump and support for Clinton.

In response to the claim by Trump’s advisor that, if elected, he would promote legislation in the U.S. to designate the MB a terrorist organization, MB official Gamal Heshmat said that there was a great deal of similarity between Trump and Al-Sisi, because both of them “rely… on spreading fear among their people in order to justify the actions of violence, exclusion and takeover in which they believe and which they employ with [great] confidence under the pretext of fighting terror and promoting stability!”[14]

Dr. Osama Rushdi, an official in the Construction and Development party, the political branch of Al-Gama’a Al-Islamiyya, said that “it will be a great disaster if Trump becomes the U.S. president,” adding that he is “a racist and fascist” and threatens all Muslims, whereas Clinton is more rational. [15]

Al-Shurouq Editor: Trump Is An Enemy Of Mankind; Clinton Is A True Head of State

The independent daily Al-Shurouq published two articles against supporting Trump. The daily’s editor, ‘Imad Al-Din Hussein, wrote in a September 26 article that Trump was an “extremist and racist” and even “an enemy of most of mankind,” and that Clinton was the better candidate due to her experience. He wrote: “Which of the two would be better for Egypt as U.S. president, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?… Among many in Egypt, there is a widespread belief that a Trump victory would be better for us, since he promised to include the Muslim Brotherhood on the list of designated terrorist [organizations], while the Democratic Clinton opposes the June 30 revolution [i.e., Mursi’s ouster]. This impression might be partially true, but people forget that Trump is also an enemy of most of mankind, as he is an extremist and a racist, and repeatedly says that if elected, he would expel the Arabs and Muslims from the U.S. [These] extremist statements have not stopped since the beginning of his election campaign. Likewise, his victory would be the greatest of gifts for ISIS and for all the extremists in the region and in the world, because it would give them the best excuse of all for their extremism.

“It is true that Clinton was not enthusiastic about the June 30 revolution, but she is a true head of state. She is not a demagogue or a racist, and carefully weighs every word she says, as she spent eight years in the White House alongside her husband, president Bill Clinton, and for years was secretary of state during Obama’s first term. Conversely, Trump is rash, a radical extremist, and lacks any political experience.

“So which of the two is better for Egypt, Trump or Clinton? If Trump wins, we will temporarily gain a few nice slogans, but in the long run we will lose much, as Arabs and Muslims, if he implements his slogans. If Clinton wins, she may be somewhat reserved towards us, but not as much as Obama, and our relationship might stabilize in the long term…

“Therefore, those who think a Trump victory means a total reversal [of the U.S. position on Egypt] are deluding themselves. We must remember, for example, that every presidential candidate courts the Jewish lobby and promises to transfer their country’s embassy to Jerusalem, but that [when the time comes] they don’t, because of their interests vis-à-vis the Arab world.”[16]

Former Egyptian MP: Trump “Will Contribute To The World Becoming A Hell”; Hillary Is The Lesser Evil

The second Al-Shurouq article, also published on September 29, was by former Egyptian MP Mustafa Al-Naggar. He contended that Trump was no less dangerous for the world than Nazism and fascism, and condemned those who express support for him in Egypt, calling them extremist right-wing elements that pose a danger to Egypt itself. He wrote: “Under the influence of Ikhwanophobia [fear of the Muslim Brotherhood], the U.S. elections have become a new arena of schism in Egypt, for accusations of treason, and for classification by position on the candidates.

“It is no exaggeration to say that in recent days, and especially after the first televised debate, there is a sense [among Egyptians] that this election is not about the U.S., but about Egypt. There has been a resurgence of the tumultuous debate that is characterized by illogic, to the point where Hillary Clinton is described as a member and supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood. One of the lies [going around] is that Clinton is grooming an American woman who is of Pakistani descent and a Pakistani Muslim Brotherhood member [referring to Huma Abedin] to become secretary of state!…

“In general, it is odd that some in Egypt support Trump, the man who undoubtedly represents the worst of modern American extremism. He repeatedly spews racism in its ugliest form, and most of his positions clash with humanism and the values of tolerance and coexistence with which the world has come very far and from which there is no retreat…

“It is therefore foolish to argue that this despicable racist will combat extremism and terrorism. On the contrary, he will greatly contribute to the world becoming a hell. Therefore, his existence will justify the rise of terrorism, deepen the concept of the clash of civilizations, and inflame religious animosity among the peoples…

“Trump threatens not only the U.S., but the entire world. The rise of Trumpism on the global level effectively recreates messages of hate and the rise of the extreme right, evoking the era of Nazism and Fascism in Germany and Italy that led the world to bloody wars that claimed millions of lives. Who wants that again?

“In effect, the U.S. is not run by a single person, but by enormous institutions of decision-makers. However, the election of an extremist and racist president, who will appoint an administration that shares his mentality, will cause many problems for America and for the world.

“This does not mean that Hillary Clinton is an angel who will do good for the world and Arab countries. But a choice between two bad things does not mean choosing the better one, but choosing the lesser evil. We have no voice in the U.S. presidential race. But we hope that the Americans will throw out the preachers of hatred and the racists, and send a message to the world that they oppose the insane campaign on which Trump and his ilk are leading them…

“[In order to cure] the delusions of the Trump supporters in Egypt, there is first a need for psychological treatment, and [only] then rational and ideological refutation. This group of extremists in Egypt that reflects the rise of a secular right wing is no less dangerous than the religious right. We must deal with it by disproving and dismantling the terminology of this message, and by making the public aware of its risks and consequences for Egypt…”[17]

Other Articles: Trump And Clinton Are Equally Bad

Also published in the Egyptian press were some articles claiming that Trump and Clinton would be equally bad for Egypt. Tarek Fahmy, a professor of political science at the American University in Cairo, told the Al-Yawm Al-Sabi’ daily that America is choosing between bad and worse and that there was essentially no difference between the two candidates in terms of foreign policy.[18]

Mursi ‘Atallah, the former board chairman of the Al-Ahram Foundation, wrote on September 21 that the debate about which is better, Clinton or Trump, was boring since both of them hate Arabs more or less to the same degree. He wrote: “As happens every four years, the Arab analysts and intellectuals are preoccupied with finding an answer to the traditional question: Which is better, an American president from the Democratic party or from the Republican party? The public has wearied of the recurring scenes of this boring play that repeats every four years. Even if the protagonists of this play are different, nothing in the discourse is, not even one single line.

“There is no difference between Reagan and Carter or Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The Republicans and the Democrats are two sides of the same coin.

“If the Republican candidate Donald Trump presents himself as an openly hostile enemy of the Arabs and Muslims, there are those who forget that Hillary Clinton harbors no less hostility and hatred [towards them] than Trump, but only softens it outwardly…”[19]

* Y. Graff is a research fellow at MEMRI; H. Varulkar is Director of Research at MEMRI.

[1] Al-Masri Al-Yawm (Egypt), September 22, 2016.

[2] Cnn.com, washingtonpost.com, Al-Ahram (Egypt), September 21, 2016.

[3] Al-Masri Al-Yawm (Egypt), September 20, 2016.

[4] Al-Watan (Egypt), September 20, 2016.

[5] Cnn.com, September 22, 2016.

[6] Al-Ahram (Egypt), April 2, 2015, October 1, 2015, October 29, 2015.

[7] Al-Masri Al-Yawm (Egypt), September 26, 2016.

[8] Masralarabia.com, September 27, 2016.

[9] Al-Ahram (Egypt), September 23, 2016.

[10] Al-Yawm Al-Sabi’ (Egypt), September 21, 2016.

[11] Al-Ahram (Egypt), September 25, 2016.

[12] Al-Ahram (Egypt), October 7, 2016.

[13] Al-Watan (Egypt), September 28, 2016.

[14] Rassd.com, September 20, 2016.

[15] Rassd.com, September 20, 2016.

[16] Al-Shurouq (Egypt), September 26, 2016.

[17] Al-Shurouq (Egypt), September 29, 2016.

[18] Al-Yawm Al-Sabi’ (Egypt), September 28, 2016.

[19] Al-Ahram (Egypt), September 21, 2016.

Categories: 2016 elections, Donald Trump, Egypt, Hillary Clinton, Muslim Brotherhood, Sisi
Tags: Donald Trump, Egypt, Muslim Brotherhood, Sisi

Comments: Be the first to comment

The Glazov Gang-Hillary and the Muslim Brotherhood

November 4, 2016

The Glazov Gang-Hillary and the Muslim Brotherhood via YouTube, November 3, 2016

Categories: 2016 elections, Hamas, Hillary Clinton and Islam, Huma Abedin, Muslim Brotherhood
Tags: Hamas, Hillary Clinton and Islam, Huma Abedin, Muslim Brotherhood

Comments: Be the first to comment

HAMAS dba CAIR Using 2016 Muslim GOTV Campaign to Fund Jihad

November 4, 2016

HAMAS dba CAIR Using 2016 Muslim GOTV Campaign to Fund Jihad, Center for Security Policy, November 3, 2016

The Center for Security Policy reported in its September 2015 publication Star Spangled Shariah that the Muslim Brotherhood was actively setting its sights on the 2016 election cycle and preparing for a ‘get out the vote’ operation to mobilize its base. The United States Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO), the first U.S. political party openly associated with the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood, is aggressively pursuing many of its operational objectives behind a screen of feigned ‘patriotism’. Since the inception of the USCMO in March 2014, the Muslim Brotherhood-led organization more than once has relied upon a less-than-transparent modus operandi that obscure its true agenda, activities, and intentions for the U.S. political process from the general public and even members of Congress.

The Muslim Brotherhood agenda for the United States includes the subversive infiltration of every sphere of American society and recruitment of assistance in the subversive process from unwitting American themselves. The Muslim Brotherhood understood that the successful execution of its plan for societal destruction from within depends on what it calls the ‘settlement process:’ ‘In order for Islam and its Movement’ to become ‘a part of the homeland’ in which it lives, ‘stable’ in its land, ‘rooted’ in the spirits and minds and people, ‘enabled’ in the life of its society, and firmly established within organizations through which the Islamic structure is to be built, the Movement must work to obtain ‘the keys’ and tools of this of this ‘Civilization Jihadist’ project that is the responsibility of its vanguard, the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.

The USCMO and its Secretary General Oussama Jammal relied upon the expertise of veteran Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood leader Sabri Samirah, banned and deported from the United States for a decade until his (apparently temporary) 2014 return. Samirah worked as chairman of the Islamic Association of Palestine, the progenitor to the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). It will be recalled that the IAP was established in 1981 by HAMAS operative Mousa Abu Marzook. Samirah has functioned effectively as a catalyst for the next steps of Civilization Jihad described in the 1991 document ‘An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for North America’ by working closely with USCMO leadership to ‘get out the vote’ to influence key elections before his return to Jordan in October 2015.

Today, the principal leader of the Muslim Brotherhood-led USCMO is none other than Foreign Terrorist Organization-listed HAMAS doing-business-as CAIR. In the fall of 2016, CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad unveiled the first-ever Muslim Brotherhood ‘Muslims GOTV’ campaign. As noted on the CAIR website, donations to support the ‘Muslims GOTV’ campaign are both tax deductible and zakat eligible. As explained in Islamic Law (shariah), however, ‘zakat’ is not merely ‘charity,’ but rather an obligatory tax on all Muslims and Muslim firms. According to shariah, all zakat proceeds collected anywhere on earth must be distributed among a legally-fixed set of recipients, at least one-eighth of which is always jihad.

In essence, therefore, HAMAS dba CAIR and the USCMO are not only running an influence operation under cover of ‘citizen activism’ during the 2016 U.S. presidential election, but using proceeds dishonestly acquired under the cloak of star spangled shariah to support enemies of the United States and the Free World.

Categories: 2016 elections, CAIR, Hamas, Islamists in America, Muslim Brotherhood
Tags: CAIR, Hamas, Islamists in America, Muslim Brotherhood

Comments: Be the first to comment

America’s “Arab Spring”

November 3, 2016

America’s “Arab Spring”, Gatestone Institute, Nonie Darwish, November 3, 2016

Americans have a choice: they can either keep on empowering Islam, and helping extremist Muslims infiltrate into the American system — even as there is a resolution in the House of Representatives to shut down all criticism of Islam — or they can end the gamble of the current administration, which seems bent on changing America forever by allowing the worldwide empowerment of Islam. They can continue the Islamist “Arab Spring” revolution to change “America as we know it” or preserve the freedoms of the American republic.

********************************

President Obama appears to have been told that if all these secular dictators could be brought down, a magnificent Arab Spring would blossom. This was, it seems, precisely the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood: to get America’s help to topple the dictatorships — then mostly military and secular — but then to replace them with themselves, Islamists.

After Egypt took down the Muslim Brotherhood, the goal of establishing the Islamic Caliphate in Egypt simply moved to Syria, the only Arab nation where a secular Muslim leader had survived the Arab Spring.

Promoting Islam also seems to have been a major factor in Obama’s equation for America. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton followed suit, hosting several closed-door conferences on “Defamation of Religion,” to suppress free speech and internationally criminalize any criticism of Islam with fines and prison. She would rather blame terrorism on free speech than on the violent tenets of Islam.

This escalating subversion should be reason enough for all Western democratic countries permanently to part company with the United Nations. Its history of corruption is neither new nor surprising, or that it is run anti-democratic “club of dictators” whose interests are opposite to ours.

The goals of U.S. President Barack Obama in the Middle East ended the rule of most of the “secular” Arab leaders in the area. His views may have come, partly at least, from propaganda on why Muslim people supposedly lacked freedom there. Obama appears to have been told that if all these secular dictators could be brought down, a magnificent Arab Spring would blossom.

This was, it seems, precisely the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood: to get America’s help to topple the dictatorships — then mostly military and secular — but then to replace them with themselves, Islamists.

The goals of the Muslim Brotherhood happened to be in tune with Obama’s goals in the Middle East. Obama’s first major presidential speech took place in Cairo before a large number of Islamic sheikhs and members of the Muslim Brotherhood. They were empowered and given legitimacy by Obama. A scorned Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak did not attend; thus, with the blessing of the United States, the Muslim Brotherhood’s rise to power in Egypt was begun.

Obama’s first major presidential speech, on June 4, 2009, took place in Cairo before a large number of Islamic sheikhs and members of the Muslim Brotherhood. They were empowered and given legitimacy by Obama. A scorned Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak did not attend; thus, with the blessing of the United States, the Muslim Brotherhood’s rise to power in Egypt was begun. (Image source: White House)

Today, ordinary Egyptians link the ascendancy of the Muslim Brotherhood directly to the Obama administration. Cairo was about to become the capital of the new Islamic Caliphate if Egyptians had not, after a year, come out in the millions to stop it.

The Obama administration did not appear happy with the counter-revolution, and the rise to power of Egypt’s current president, General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, and began doing everything it could to thwart it.

Egypt was back to square one: a military dictatorship that it had once convinced the West was the cause of its oppression.

America’s “Arab Spring” adventure — to topple secular dictators to bring about democracies — did not exactly work as planned. Bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East failed miserably, but the tyranny of the Caliphate, which had been the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood in the first place, was building. After Egypt took down the Muslim Brotherhood, the goal of establishing the Islamic Caliphate in Egypt simply moved to Syria, the only Arab nation where a secular Muslim leader had survived the Arab Spring.

Promoting Islam also seems to have been a major factor in Obama’s equation for America. Before Obama started to implement his promise to “change America as we know it,” he first had to change the Middle East as they knew it. Many of the changes over which he presided were in harmony with the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood. Its motto is: “Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

But while the Muslim brotherhood has been made illegal in Egypt, the Obama administration still refuses to label the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization. Under Obama, Islam became untouchable, not open to any kind of criticism. He even claimed that “Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton followed suit, and hosted several closed-door conferences in Washington and London on “Defamation of Religion,” to suppress free speech and internationally criminalize any criticism of Islam with fines and prison.

Even in a recent debate, Clinton stated, “Islam was always part of American history — even since the Revolutionary War.”

She would rather blame terrorism on free speech than on the violent tenets of Islam.

Only a person from the Middle East could understand the immense value of such a gift to the goals of Islamic jihadists in America.

It is unfortunate that many Americans apparently still do not know that Islamists rewrite history in order to claim that any land they wish to conquer was originally Islamic or founded by Muslims — even though historically Islam did not exist until seventh century, hundreds of years after Judaism and Christianity.

Today, Muslims have re-written their history books to claim that Muslims originally built the ancient Jewish Biblical sites, and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has bowed to the wishes of Qatar and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) — a bloc of 56 Islamic nations plus “Palestine” — to back up this fiction. UNESCO recently passed resolutions obscenely declaring ancient Jewish Biblical monuments — such as Hebron’s Cave of the Patriarchs, Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem and Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, home of the great ancient Jewish Temples — Islamic sites.

Which country will be next? This escalating subversion should be reason enough for all Western democratic countries permanently to part company with the United Nations. Its history of corruption is neither new nor surprising, or that it is run anti-democratic “club of dictators” whose interests are opposite to ours.

Jihadists today are stating that they also have a claim over Italy, Greece, and Spain — and now America. Obama and Hillary Clinton actually just solidified such claims for future Muslim history books about who actually built America.

It has recently become clear through WikiLeaks that the American system is indeed rigged and that Washington DC has turned into a swamp; or more accurately an “Arab Spring” swamp.

Egypt, on a much smaller scale, had to face such a choice in 2012-13, between life under the values of the Muslim Brotherhood or a life under a sliver of hope for a democracy, which Islam, under its laws, can never allow.

Both Egyptians and the West sorely need to understand that Islamic law, sharia, does not permit anything other than an Islamic government under the rule of Islamic law. Consequently, only military force can stand against sharia tyranny. The Muslim Brotherhood had proven once again that the only way out of Islamic theocracies is through military dictatorships.

A head-on collision over the future of America is underway. Many Americans still do not understand the magnitude of what is at stake, but many Islamists do: they are lying in wait, hoping to return to their budding Caliphate.

Categories: 2016 elections, Arab Spring, Egypt, Hillary Clinton and Islamists, Islamists in America, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama and Islamists, Obama and Muslim Brotherhood
Tags: Arab Spring, Egypt, Hillary Clinton and Islamists, Islamists in America, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama and Islamists, Obama and Muslim Brotherhood

Comments: Be the first to comment