Saturday, May 5, 2012


Posted by BH


Did you know that the United States government is using drones to kill innocent people in Pakistan? Did you know that the Pakistani government has asked President Obama to stop it and he won't? Did you know that Pakistan is a sovereign country that has nuclear weapons and is an American ally?
Last week, the Obama administration not only acknowledged the use of the drones; it also revealed that it has plans to increase the frequency and ferocity of the attacks. White House counterterrorism adviser John O. Brennan argued that these attacks are "in full accordance with the law" and are not likely to be stopped anytime soon.
Brennan declined to say how many people were killed or just where the killings took place or who is doing it. But we know that Obama has a morbid fascination with his plastic killing machines, and we know that these machines are among the favored tools of the CIA. We also know that if the president had been using the military to do this, he'd be legally compelled to reveal it to Congress and eventually to seek permission.
We know about the need to tell Congress and ask for permission because of the War Powers Act. This law, enacted in 1973 over President Nixon's veto, permits the president to use the military for 90 days before telling Congress and for 180 days before he needs congressional authorization. Obama must believe that he can bypass this law by using civilian CIA agents, rather than uniformed military, to do his killing.
The Constitution limits the presidential use of war powers to those necessary for an immediate defense of the United States or those exercised pursuant to a valid congressional declaration of war. In this case of Pakistan, the president has neither. And international law prohibits entering a sovereign country without its consent. But Brennan argued that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which Congress enacted in 2001 in the aftermath of 9/11 to enable President Bush to pursue the perpetrators of 9/11, is essentially carte blanche for any president to kill whomever he wants, and that the use of drones, rather than the military or rather than arresting those the government believes have conspired to harm us, is a "surgical" technique that safeguards the innocent.
Attorney General Eric Holder made a similar unconstitutional argument a few months ago when he stated in defense of the president's using drones to kill Americans in Yemen that the AUMF, plus the careful consideration that the White House gives to the dimensions of each killing and the culpability of each person killed, somehow satisfied the Constitution's requirements for due process.
What monstrous nonsense all this is. These killings 10,000 miles from here hardly constitute self-defense and are not in pursuit of a declaration of war. So, what has Congress done about this? Nothing. And what have the courts done about this? Nothing.
Prior to the president's ordering the killing of the New Mexico-born and unindicted and uncharged Anwar al-Awlaki, al-Awlaki's American father sued the president in federal district court and asked a judge to prevent the president from murdering his son in Yemen. After the judge dismissed the case, a CIA-fired drone killed al-Awlaki and his American companion and his 16-year-old American son.
In his three-plus years in office, Obama has launched 254 drones toward persons in Pakistan, and they collectively have killed 1,277 persons there. The New America Foundation, a Washington think tank that monitors the presidential use of drones in Pakistan, estimates that between 11 and 17 percent of the drone victims are innocent Pakistani civilians. So much for Brennan's surgical strikes. So much for Holder's due process.
The president is waging a private war against private persons -- even Americans -- whose deaths he obviously believes will keep America safe. But he is doing so without congressional authorization, in violation of the Constitution, and in a manner that jeopardizes our freedom.
Who will keep us safe from a president who wants to use drones here? How long will it be before local American governments -- 313 of which already possess drones -- use them to kill here because they are surgical and a substitute for due process? Can you imagine the outcry if Cuba or China launched drones at their dissidents in Florida or California and used Obama's behavior in Pakistan as a justification?
How long will it be before even the semblance of our Constitution is gone?


Posted by BH


By: Devvy
May 5, 2012
I have been writing about vote fraud since 1993. Few Americans became interested in the cold reality that since the mid-1960s our elections have been rigged until the 2000 presidential election and the farce known as 'hanging chads'. As regular readers of my columns know I belong to no party; I left the Republican Party in 1996 over vote fraud and the putrid world of dirty politics where the truth didn't matter. It still doesn't to party hacks whose only goal is to climb the political ladder of power.
The Florida recount energized Democrats; the howling was heard from coast to coast. Laughable when you consider the Democratic Party machine is more famous for vote fraud than Republicans. Both sides engage in it and that's a fact.
The 2004 presidential "election" was another farce. An illusion to keep the herds believing their vote actually counted. It only counts when those who count the ballots put it in the desired win column. In 2008, Richard Hayes Phillips book, Witness To A Crime: A Citizens' Audit of an American Election, was published. That book is an absolute condemnation of vote fraud in the State of Ohio. Phillips, who I interviewed when I had my radio show, examined 126,00 ballots, 127 poll books and 141 voter signature books from 18 counties: "Thousands of ballots in heavily Democratic precincts were pre-punched for third-party candidates. Voting machines were rigged, tabulators were rigged, ballot boxes were stuffed, ballots were altered, ballots were sorted according to candidate, and ballots were destroyed." 

Friday, May 4, 2012

OVAL 3 MAY 3 2012

Posted by BH

Dictator Obama Issues New Anti-American Decrees

In his latest display of his full USA federal government dictatorship over both the American people and the former co-branches of government, Dictator Obama is warning the Supreme Court to either rule in his favor or face severe consequences.

Posted by BH
BY:  Sher Zieve
Fox News’ Martha McCallum advised Thursday that the Obama Administration has been quietly sending missives to the Supreme Court threatening that if it doesn’t rule in his favor on ObamaCare, Medicare will face disruption and “chaos.”  Therefore, if SCOTUS rules in favor of the US Constitution, Obama & Co will begin its campaign to either destroy Medicare or make those on it suffer greatly.   The Obama syndicate is said to be threatening to hold off Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals if SCOTUS does not comply with Obama’s demands and submit to him.
As an additional example of Obama’s illegal and (I believe) highly treasonous behaviors, on 1 May and 2 May Obama issued two additional unconstitutional and illegal Executive Orders.  The first E.O., issued 1 May 2012, makes the USA subject to “international regulations” as opposed to looking to and following the US Constitution.   Also, with this new E.O., the US FDA will now be able to be bypassed by International committees–thus, replacing the FDA with any international group which may be chosen.  In essence, Obama is quickly eliminating US Sovereignty and selling the USA to the international “community.”
The second E.O. issued in 2 days was signed by Obama on 2 May 2012.  This E.O. instructs the USA to bow to international regulations instead of the US Constitution and Businessweek reports:  “Obama’s order provides a framework to organize scattered efforts to promote international regulatory cooperation, the chamber’s top global regulatory official said today.
“Today’s executive order marks a paradigm shift for U.S. regulators by directing them to take the international implications of their work into account in a consistent and comprehensive way,” Sean Heather, vice president of the chamber’s Center for Global Regulatory Cooperation, said in an e-mailed statement.”  This also brings the USA closer to becoming a “North American Union” and–also–eliminating its sovereignty–in toto.
Suffice it to say, no one in Congress has issued even the proverbial “peep” over either of these illegal “orders.”  Do the American people really want to continue to live under this blatant tyranny?
The second question is “Will the Supreme Court of the United States of America bow to Obama and give up its co-equal status to the dictator as the US Congress has already done?”  If so,  perhaps its time for We-the-People to recruit the Honduran Supreme Court who, along with their military, ousted its then President Manuel Zelaya who had become a dictator.  Oppression under the Obama syndicate becomes worse each and every day, folks.  Will we ever choose to go back to the sunshine?
“And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?”
- Revelation 13:4
Obama Signs Order Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation:
New Obama Executive Order Pushes Us Closer To A North American Union:
Obama Order Urges Rule Review to Boost U.S. Company Trade:
Honduran Military Coup Ousts Leftist President Manuel Zelaya:

Sher Zieve is an author and political commentator. Zieve’s op-ed columns are widely carried by multiple internet journals and sites, and she also writes hard news.
Her columns have also appeared in The Oregon Herald, Dallas Times, Sacramento Sun, in international news publications, and on multiple university websites. Sher is also a guest on multiple national radio shows.
Sher can be reached at
Graphics added by Gulag Bound

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

NJ GOVERNOR CHRIS CHRISTIE for VP? Don’t let Mitt Romney choose a running mate with dirty Islamist ties

Posted by BH

BNI has posted these stories in the past, but here is a good summary of Christie's repugnant, over- the-top support for Muslims with terrorist ties and whose loyalties are to Islam, not America, as well as his disparagement of those who oppose the recognition of sharia law by US Courts.

Daniel Pipes (H/T Frederic F)  A Quinnipiac poll in April showed Chris Christie the most popular potential Republican vice-presidential candidate, thanks to his budget cuts and standing up to government employee unions. But the governor of New Jersey has a problem, specifically an Islam problem, in the way of his possible ascent to higher office. We regret to report that, time and again, he has sided with Islamist forces against those safeguarding American security and civilization.
Some examples:

2008: When serving as U.S. attorney for New Jersey, Christie embraced and kissed Mohammed Qatanani, imam of the Islamic Center of Passaic County, and praised him as "a man of great goodwill."

He did this after Qatanani had publicly ranted against Jews and in support of funding Hamas, a U.S. government–designated terror organization, and on the eve of his deportation hearing for hiding an Israeli conviction for membership in Hamas. In addition, Christie designated a top aide, Assistant U.S. Attorney Charles McKenna, to testify as a character witness for Qatanani

2010: After Derek Fenton burned three pages of a Koran at a 9/11 memorial ceremony, his employer, New Jersey Transit, got Christie's approval to fire him.

Christie vocally endorsed Fenton's termination, even though this meant protecting Islam at the expense of Fenton's constitutional right to free speech, declaring, "I don't have any problem with him being fired." The American Civil Liberties Union successfully represented Fenton to get his job back.

2010: Christie voted 'present' on the issue of opposition to the Ground Zero Victory mosque

“My principles on this are two-fold. One, that we have to acknowledge, respect and give some measure of deference to the feelings of the family members who lost there loved ones there that day. But it would be wrong to so overreact to that, that we paint Islam with a brush of radical Muslim extremists that just want to kill Americans because we are Americans. But beyond that…I am not going to get into it..."

2011: Christie appointed an Islamist, Sohail


VW Passat 78.5 MPG (Imperial gallon) 65.2 MPG US gallon in the Uk

Posted by BH

Tuesday, May 1, 2012


Posted by BH

Monday, April 30, 2012


Posted by BH

Have you ever asked yourself why, despite more than ten years of efforts –involving, among other things, the loss of thousands of lives in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, well-over a trillion dollars spent, countless man-years wasted waiting in airport security lines and endless efforts to ensure that no offense is given to seemingly permanently aggrieved Muslim activists – are we no closer to victory in the so-called “war on terror” than we were on 9/11?
Thankfully, we have been able to kill some dangerous bad guys. The sad truth of the matter is that, by almost any other measure, the prospect of victory is becoming more remote by the day. And no one seems able to explain the reason.
In an effort to provide the missing answer, on April 24, the Center for Security Policy is making available via the Internet a new, free ten-part video course called “The Muslim Brotherhood in America: The Enemy Within.” This course connects the proverbial dots, drawing on a wealth of publicly available data and first-hand accounts to present a picture that has, for over a decade, been obscured, denied and suppressed:
America faces in addition to the threat of violent jihad another, even more toxic danger – a stealthy and pre-violent form of warfare aimed at destroying our constitutional form of democratic government and free society. The Muslim Brotherhood is the prime-mover behind this seditious campaign, which it calls “civilization jihad.”

PART 1 - Muslim Brotherhood in America,: The Threat Doctrine of Shariah & the Muslim Brotherhood

Posted by BH

Part 1: The Threat Doctrine of Shariah & the Muslim Brotherhood

The first section of this briefing explains what shariah is according to the authorities and institutions of Islam and as promoted most aggressively by an organization called the Muslim Brotherhood.

Key Points of Part 1

  • Shariah is a totalitarian, brutally repressive and supremacist doctrine.
  • Shariah is principally about power, not faith.  Accordingly, adherence towards the political end of overthrowing the U.S. government is seditious and must be prosecuted, not protected religious practice.
  • The Muslim Brotherhood is the prime-mover worldwide behind the effort to impose shariah everywhere, through stealthy means until such time as violence can be used to achieve the creation of a global caliphate to rule in accordance with shariah.
  • The Brotherhood is not a non-violent group.  Rather, in most countries where it operates including the United States, it is in a pre-violent phase.

Discussion Topics for Part 1

  1. Some Muslims believe that it is God’s will that they live under shariah and compel everybody else to do so.  If they argue that such beliefs are part of their religious practice, should they have the right under the U.S. Constitution to act on them?
  2. Do you think shariah is consistent with the Constitution? If not, does it matter that some people would like to bring it here as long as they are not very numerous or successful?
  3. If Muslim men wish to treat women in ways that reflect their inferiority with respect to their marital, property and other rights, should that be okay in the United States?
  4. Can the United States safely “do business with” the Muslim Brotherhood?
  5. Should the United States help the Muslim Brotherhood come to power or consolidate it in the Middle East?  How about elsewhere?
  6. Would you like to live under shariah law?  What difference do you think it would make in your life?
  7. Do you think we should take seriously those who say they seek to impose shariah worldwide?
  8. Or would we be better served by trying to deny them the attention they seem to crave?

PART 2 - Muslim Brotherhood in America, : 'Civilization Jihad' in America

Posted by BH

Part 2: The Brotherhood’s ‘Civilization Jihad’ in America


The Muslim Brotherhood’s strategy for realizing its mission of “destroying Western civilization from within” was described in an undated 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document entitled “Phases of the World Underground Movement Plan.” In this part, we investigate what they’re doing to implement it.

Key Points in Part 2

  • According to the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategic plan, the group’s mission in America is a “civilization-jihadist process…a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within” by our hands and the hands of the believers “so that God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”
  • A list of 29 Muslim-American groups was attached to that plan identifying them as “our organizations and organizations of our friends.”  Even today, 21 years later, most of the preeminent Muslim-American advocacy and public policy entities are on that list.
  • The Muslim Brotherhood’s civilization jihad is being pursued through stealthy means involving the penetration and subversion of this country’s civil society and governing institutions.
  • A central feature of the stealthy, pre-violent jihad is what the military calls “information dominance” – it helps the Muslim Brotherhood keep us ignorant of the true nature of the threat they pose and the progress they are making in bringing shariah to America.

Discussion Topics

  1. Where does the term “civilization jihad” come from, and what is meant by it?
  2. What evidence is there that the Muslim Brotherhood is associated with many prominent Muslim-American organizations – and what significance do you give to such associations?
  3. Were you surprised to learn of the nature and advanced state of the Brotherhood’s stealthy jihadist techniques?
  4. What is the significance of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation?
  5. Characterize the nature and implications of the guidelines established by the Society of Professional Journalists in October 2011.
  6. What is Shariah-Compliance Finance and what does its presence in our capital markets and government holdings imply for the civilization jihad’s objective of destroying us from within by our own hand?
  7. Is shariah law being applied in U.S. courts?


Sunday, April 29, 2012

PART 3 Muslim Brotherhood in America, : Influence Operations Against Conservatives & the GOP

Posted by BH

Part 3: Brotherhood Influence Operations Against ‘Policy Groups’: Conservatives & the GOP



With this grounding in the nature of shariah, the goals and activities of the Muslim Brotherhood to impose it worldwide and an introduction to the latter’s civilization jihad against the United States, let’s take a closer look at one of the Ikhwan’s most successful influence operations: its penetration and manipulation of the Republican Party and the conservative movement in America.

Key Points in Part 3

  • Starting with the Clinton Administration, a top Muslim Brotherhood operative – Abdurahman Alamoudi – succeeded in penetrating the top reaches of the U.S. government.  He was, among other things, given the responsibility for recruiting, training and credentialing chaplains for the U.S. military and prison system.
  • In 1998, Alamoudi launched what amounted to a Muslim Brotherhood front organization, the Islamic Free Market Institute, for the purpose of achieving comparable access to and influence with the Republicans and conservatives.
  • He was enabled in this by the front organization’s founding chairman: anti-tax activist Grover Norquist.
  • In addition to al Qaeda financier Alamoudi, Norquist helped mainstream in the Bush campaign and/or administration five other Muslims with extensive ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.  They were: the Islamic Institute’s Khalid Saffuri, CAIR’s Nihad Awad, Palestinian Jihad’s Sami al-Arian, the Fiqh Council’s Muzzamil Siddiqi and Suhail Khan, a former staffer for Rep. Tom Campbell of California.
  • The opportunity thus afforded to these influence operators had a pronounced and deleterious impact on the U.S. government’s characterization of and policies and strategies towards the so-called “War on Terror.”

Discussion Topics

  1. Should we be concerned that chaplains in the U.S. military and prison system have been recruited, trained and credentialed, initially by Abdurahman Alamoudi and subsequently by the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), its subsidiaries and operatives?  If so, why?
  2. Why do you think Grover Norquist became involved with Alamoudi in launching the Islamic Free Market Institute?
  3. If four federal judges have found that there were grounds to list the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and ISNA as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation Hamas money-laundering trial, should the U.S. government still be using them as interlocutors with the Muslim community?
  4. Do you think the access afforded individuals with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood had an impact on Bush administration characterization of and policy with respect to the war unleashed on 9/11?
  5. Should anybody be held accountable for affording two individuals subsequently convicted of terrorism-related crimes – Alamoudi and Sami al-Arian – access to Candidate George W. Bush and, subsequently, to his administration?
  6. Should the United States be able to use so-called “secret evidence” to deport illegal aliens while safeguarding classified information and the sources and methods by which it is obtained?


PART 4 - Muslim Brotherhood in America, : Suhail Khan, A Case Study in Influence Operations

Posted by BH

Part 4: Suhail Khan, A Case Study in Influence Operations


If we are to understand the full nature of the threat posed by the likes of Suhail Khan, we need to examine the Khan case study in closer detail. We’ll explore both Khan’s extensive ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and those he has cultivated in his own right for decades, including what he’s said in public about those ties. Then, we’ll take stock of the real service he has performed for the Islamist cause, both in the past and ongoing.

Key Points in Part 4

  • Suhail Khan was one of the Muslim political activists with longstanding personal and professional ties to the Brotherhood who gained access to the Bush 2000 campaign and served in the George W. Bush administration, thanks to the patronage of Grover Norquist.
  • In his capacity as the de facto Muslim gatekeeper in the Office of Public Liaison under senior Bush advisor Karl Rove and then as an assistant in the personal office of the Secretary of Transportation, Khan had, at a minimum, an opportunity to facilitate the penetration of other Islamists.
  • Both during his time in government service and subsequently, Khan has been deeply engaged in agendas championed by the Muslim Brotherhood and its friends.
  • He has been caught repeatedly engaging in taqiyya – lying for the faith.
  • The fact that Suhail Khan received a security clearance during his time in government is an indictment of the clearance process, not evidence that his background is problem-free.

 Discussion Topics

  1. Suhail Khan has deep family and personal ties to some of the most important Muslim-American organizations in America.  Do you find persuasive his denials that those groups are associated with the Muslim Brotherhood or that it is even present in the United States?
  2. Should we be concerned that Suhail Khan in a 1999 address to a Muslim Brotherhood audience extolled Muslims’ “love of death more than our oppressors love life” and his declaration that he had “dedicated his life to the ummah”?
  3. If Suhail Khan is, in fact, a Muslim Brotherhood operative, should we be concerned that he worked in the Bush White House and Transportation Department?
  4. If Suhail Khan received a security clearance, shouldn’t that allay any concerns about his service in such roles?
  5. Describe the difference between being a Muslim activist and being a Muslim political activist, and how does Suhail Khan fulfill these qualifications?
  6. If Suhail Khan is, indeed, a Muslim Brotherhood operative, should it be of concern that he is a lobbyist in Washington for a major American company, Microsoft?
  7. Should the United States remove “impediments to zakat,” as Suhail Khan wants, if the practical effect would be to remove legal barriers currently in place to material support for terror?
  8. Isn’t “interfaith dialogue” of the kind promoted by Suhail Khan with his trip for government officials and prominent Muslim figures to Auschwitz a good thing?


PART 5 Muslim Brotherhood in America, : The Organizations Islamists Are Using to Subvert the Right

Posted by BH

Part 5: The Organizations Islamists Are Using to Subvert the Right


The next part of this briefing offers some illustrative examples of the myriad ways in which Norquist and his team are still very actively and purposefully promoting the Islamist agenda — with considerable, and toxic, effect.

Key Points in Part 5

  • With the sponsorship and assistance of Grover Norquist, a variety of organizations ostensibly on the Right have been – and are continuing to be – put at the service of Islamists.  These include:
    • Americans for Tax Reform (ATR)
    • Islamic Free Market Institute (II)
    • The ‘Center-Right’ Coalition (the ‘Wednesday Meeting’)
    • The Conservative Inclusion Coalition
    • The Center-Right Coalition “franchises” and sponsored meetings around the country
    • The American Conservative Defense Alliance (ACDA)
  • Norquist has lent his conservative political credentials to Red-Green coalitions made up of radical and other leftists and Muslim Brotherhood front groups with whom they routinely make common cause to the detriment of U.S. security, constitutional freedoms and other interests.
  • Norquist has even worked on behalf of the Islamic Republic of Iran through one such Leftist-Islamist group, the Coalition for a New American Policy for Iran, founded in his offices.

Discussion Topics

  1. What is your reaction to Paul Weyrich’s statement that “It’s very possible some of the Muslims want to establish a fifth column in this country”?
  2. What do you think of the idea that the U.S. Constitution as the “supreme law of the land” is outdated and that we should allow foreign laws – including, but not limited to, shariah – to be used to adjudicate disputes in our courts?  Should that be the case even in circumstances where doing so would deny American citizens constitutional rights?
  3. Should we be concerned that Grover Norquist continues to build infrastructure and utilize it to advance agendas that are favored by the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists?
  4. Does it serve American interests to decline to aid opposition elements in Iran, to resist sanctions on the regime and foreclose the option of military action to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon?
  5. Are you concerned about coalitions involving radical leftists and Islamists?  What do you make of a prominent conservative consorting with, in some cases founding and otherwise promoting their agendas?


PART 6 Muslim Brotherhood in America, : Electing Islamist Republicans

Posted by BH

In this part, we consider how several individuals with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood or other Islamists have been groomed to run for office as Republicans. The careers of Grover Norqust proteges Kamal Nawash, Faisal Gill, and Imad ‘David’ Ramadan are given close scrutiny.

Key Points in Part 6

  • Grover Norquist has helped a number of Muslim-American organizations and individuals associated with the Muslim Brotherhood adopt the coloration of conservatives and Republicans.
  • At one point, one of the founders of a group styling itself Muslims for America described how Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform was “looking for Muslim leaders, state-by-state, to participate within their monthly meetings, which also serve as political hotbeds for creating relations with top political leaders and Muslims.”
  • The Course examines the backgrounds and records to date of three such Islamists.  Two of them, Kamal Nawash and Faisal Gill, failed to achieve electoral success, due in part to untimely revelations of their ties to convicted terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi.  A third Norquist-backed Muslim candidate, Imad “David” Ramadan, however, was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates in November 2011 by a 50-vote margin.
  • The key to Ramadan’s success seems to have been not only Norquist’s mentoring and networking but extensive and generous campaign donations he made with funds generated offshore but of unknown provenance to GOP politicians and organizations, a number of whom dutifully endorsed the candidate – ignoring or dismissing evidence of his problematic past and Islamist ties.

Discussion Topics

  1. Is it fair, let alone prudent, to judge people by the company they keep?  At what point should a line be drawn on “guilt by association”?
  2. Specifically, should people with associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, shariah and/or Islamist agendas be encouraged to run for public office in the United States?
  3. Should Republican leaders be concerned that they expose themselves to political liabilities if they endorse candidates that have such associations?
  4. Is it “racist,” “bigoted” or “Islamophobic” to probe a Muslim candidate’s history of family ties to Lebanese intelligence, the sources of his personal wealth or the extensive uses of such wealth to secure access to and endorsements from prominent political figures?
  5. Do you agree with former Department of Homeland Security Inspector General Clark Ervin who asked, “Should anyone even remotely connected to terrorism be employed by Homeland Security in any capacity, especially the ultrasensitive area of intelligence and infrastructure protection?”

PART 7 Muslim Brotherhood in America, : Advancing the Islamists' Agendas

Posted by BH

Building infrastructure and running candidates helps with the third part of Grover Norquist’s ongoing Islamist influence operation: advancing the agendas of the civilization jihadists or, at a minimum, promoting agendas that serve the Islamists’ interests. In this part, we take a look at some of those initiatives, including opposition a host of policies that keep America safe.

Key Points in Part 7

  • Before, during and after the Bush ’43 administration, Grover Norquist has been associated with and often played a leading role in promoting various agenda items favored by the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran and other Islamists.  These have included:
    • Endorsing political and legislative initiatives
    • Attacking critics of shariah
    • Opposing ‘American Laws for American Courts’
    • Helping the Iranian regime
    • Making common cause with the ‘Red-Green axis’
    • Using his anti-tax campaigner’s access to open doors for the Muslim Brotherhood
  • Norquist’s activities fit the profile of a classic influence operation involving:
    • The recruiting of ‘Agents of Influence’ and ‘Useful Idiots’
    • Employing such individuals to insinuate trusted personnel
    • Burrowing into various targeted institutions and communities through friendships and alliances
    • Credentialing Islamist operatives as members and, if possible, as leaders of such institutions and communities
    • Using such leadership platforms and positions of influence “inside the wire” to fracture and isolate the targeted community

Discussion Topics

  1. Should law enforcement agencies be able to use for the purpose of preventing terrorism the sorts of surveillance and investigative tools authorized for counter-drug and other efforts to counter illegal activity?  As this is the principal purpose – and involves the most controversial elements – of the Patriot Act, do you support it?
  2. Should shariah-adherent Muslims be allowed to build a mosque and “cultural center” adjacent to Ground Zero?
  3. Is it advisable, under present and foreseeable circumstances, to reduce dramatically the size and capabilities of the U.S. military or to leave America’s borders insecure?
  4. Should the United States distance itself from Israel and pursue engagement with the Iranian regime?
  5. Knowing what you do about the policies promoted by Grover Norquist – opposition to the Patriot Act, favoring the Ground Zero mosque, sharply reducing the defense budget, hostility towards Israel and promoting the Iranian regime’s party line – are you concerned that he is, according to “60 Minutes,” “the most powerful conservative man in Washington”?
  6. Do you find persuasive the evidence provided that Grover Norquist has been and is now running a classic influence operation against the Republican Party, conservative movement and U.S. government?

PART 8 Muslim Brotherhood in America, : Team Obama & the Islamists

Posted by BH

The Obama administration has greatly exacerbated the penetration of the U.S. government achieved during the George W. Bush administration. This part of the course will concentrate on illustrative examples of Muslim Brotherhood-associated individuals who have been allowed access to – and, in some cases, given positions In the Obama administration. This part is a case study of Rashad Hussain, Huma Abedin, Daliah Mogahed, Kifa Mustapha, Momamed Elibiary, and Mohamed Magid. As we will see, taken together, such people and policy initiatives have advanced considerably the Muslim Brotherhood’s civilization jihad against the United States, here at home and overseas.

Key Findings in Part 8

  • The precedents, personnel and policies promoted during the George W. Bush administration have metastasized dramatically under his successor.
  • Some individuals with close personal and professional ties to the Muslim Brotherhood have been appointed to senior and influential positions in the Obama administration.  Others have been given access in more informal advisory roles.
  • Six of this Islamist cohort are profiled in the course: Special Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation Rashad Hussein; Deputy Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Huma Abedein; Presidential advisor Dalia Mogahed; FBI Citizen’s Academy graduate Kifah Mustafa; Homeland Security Advisory Committee Member Mohamed Elibiary and Homeland Security Countering Violent Extremism Working Group Member Mohamed Magid.
  • Such individuals have clearly had an impact on U.S. policy under President Obama in ways that advance the Muslim Brotherhood’s civilization jihad and the efforts of other Islamists to compel our submission to shariah.

Discussion Topics

  1. What is a hafiz of the Quran and what are the implications of one serving in a senior position in the U.S. government?
  2. Should the fact that an individual has family members in prominent positions with Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated organization preclude them from serving in the U.S. government?
  3. Can shariah-adherent Muslims honestly swear to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”?  Is it realistic to expect them to fulfill that oath?
  4. What are the implications of the President of the United States taking advice from a woman who believes “The majority of women around the world associate gender justice, or justice for women, with sharia compliance”?
  5. Should individuals identified as unindicted co-conspirators in terrorism financing be precluded from participating in such community outreach initiatives as the FBI’s “citizen academies”?
  6. Should a Muslim member of the Department of Homeland Security’s Advisory Committee who has been given a security clearance be held to the same standards for safeguarding classified information as others with such access?
  7. Should membership in and leadership of the largest Muslim Brotherhood front in the United States – the Islamic Society of North America – disqualify someone from serving in official or advisory capacities in the federal or any state government?

Part 9 Muslim Brotherhood in America, Part 9: Team Obama & the Islamist Agenda

Posted by BH

In the closing days of the 2008 presidential campaign, Democratic candidate Barack Obama declared that he was poised to begin “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” He has certainly done so with respect to policies favored by Islamists. This part is a two-hour deep drill-down into the disastrous policies of the Obama White House, its State Department, Defense Department, Justice Department, Department of Homeland Security, and more.

Key Findings in Part 9

  • The conduct of seven key federal agencies suggests the considerable success of the Muslim Brotherhood in destroying us from within by our own hands – starting with the policies and directives emanating from the Oval Office and elsewhere in the White House complex.
    • Examples of such evidence include:
      • White House:  Promulgating a self-defeating “National Strategy for Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States” that effectively guarantees Muslim Brotherhood fronts a say, if not a veto, on policy and its implementation
      • Director of National Intelligence:  Characterizing the Muslim Brotherhood as a “largely secular group” that has “eschewed violence” and has “no overarching agenda, at least internationally”
      • State Department:  Granting unconditional and in one lump-sum payment $1.5 billion to the Muslim Brotherhood-controlled government in Egypt
      • Justice Department:  Purging FBI and other training materials about “countering violent extremism” that Muslim Brothers and their leftist allies deem “offensive”
      • Defense Department:  Pursuing a Counter-Insurgency (COIN) Strategy whose central premise and rules of engagement have, in practice, translated into submission to shariah and the enemies information dominance
      • Homeland Security:  Allowing deep penetration by Muslim Brotherhood operatives to translate into lexicons, strategies and guidelines that are seriously defective and doomed to fail
      • NASA: Implementing presidential guidance that established the Administrator’s “foremost” priority as “making Muslim nations feel good about their historic contribution to science…and math and engineering.”

Discussion Topics

  1. What do you think Candidate Barack Obama meant when he declared he would “fundamentally transform the United States of America” during his presidency?
  2. Why is the term “countering violent extremism” being used?  Are there more accurate ways to describe the threat we face?
  3. Do you think the characterization of the Muslim Brotherhood given Congress by the Director of National Intelligence in February 2011 – namely, that it is a “largely secular” organization, that has “eschewed violence” and “repudiated al Qaeda” and has “no overarching agenda, at least internationally” – is shaping U.S. policy toward that organization, here and abroad?
  4. What is the “Istanbul Process” and what do you make of it?  Is it a threat to our First Amendment freedoms?
  5. Should federal agencies be giving Muslim “community leaders” veto power or even key advisory roles in the selection of trainers and the content of training materials for “countering violent extremism”?
  6. Is the Defense Department’s counter-insurgency (COIN) strategy – at least as it is currently being implemented in Afghanistan – susceptible to misperception by the enemy as submissive?  If so, what are the implications of such a perception taking hold there?
  7. Should the Department of Homeland Security’s Countering Violent Extremism Working Group include any, let alone a significant number, of shariah-adherent Muslims or other Islamist-sympathizers?
  8. Do you believe NASA administrator’s “foremost” responsibility should be to “engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science … and math and engineering”?  Why do you think the President would say it is?

PART 10 Muslim Brotherhood in America, : What's To Be Done?

Posted by BH

How to defeat the most serious and imminent of such dangers in our time: the Islamist doctrine of shariah and the efforts of its adherents to impose it world-wide, on Muslims and non-Muslims alike, through violent means or by stealth.

Key Findings in Part 10

  • Every effort must be made to defeat the most serious and imminent of ideological danger in our time: the Islamist doctrine of shariah and the efforts of its adherents to impose it worldwide, on Muslims and non-Muslims alike, through violent means or by stealth.
  • This can be accomplished through concerted action at three levels:
    • Individual initiatives
    • Organized efforts by groups
    • National action
  • Illustrative examples of each include:
    • Individual initiatives: Becoming knowledgeable about the threat from shariah and the Muslim Brotherhood who seek to bring it here and trained in how best to counter such a threat
    • Organized efforts:  Supporting state-level legislation to prevent foreign laws like shariah that violate constitutional rights from being practiced in the state’s courts
    • National action:  Designating the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization and terminating all outreach to and support of this group and its various fronts, both here and abroad.

Discussion Topics

  1. Do you think America should be kept free of seditious shariah?
  2. Are you willing to help?
  3. Have you identified an area of this counter-jihad that you feel particularly strongly about?
  4. Do you have skill sets that would enable you to be especially effective in one facet or another of the effort to counter shariah in this country?
  5. Do you know of others who feel the same way or could be helpful?
  6. Are there improvements you would make to this course that would make it more impactful for people like you?
  7. What are your next steps in terms of becoming more knowledgeable, trained and engaged in the War for the Free World?


Posted by BH


Posted by BH

By Kevin DeAnna
Sen. James Inhofe is calling for an investigation into a top Environmental Protection Agency administrator who confessed that his “philosophy of enforcement” was to “crucify” and “make examples of” energy companies.
And an author of a book on such behavior, Eco-Tyranny: How the Left’s Green Agenda will Dismantle America,” says it’s just too much.
Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz has apologized for his remarks, but meteorologist and author Brian Sussman points out that this is only the surface of a much deeper problem with the federal bureaucracy.
In an exclusive interview with WND, Sussman asked, “Would the EPA official have apologized for his contemptuous crucifixion declaration if he had not been caught on tape? Of course not. His statement is a perfect representation of eco-tyranny.”
In his explosive new book of that title, Sussman details how what he calls “green authoritarianism” was inevitable from the beginning. He explains that Richard Nixon, who “wanted to be liked,” according to one of his well-known former advisers, created the Environmental Protection Agency as an olive branch to the hard left. As Sussman jokes, “Needless to say, it was not returned.”
According to Sussman, the EPA and the legislation that empowered it, notably the Clean Air Act, “[were] flatly unconstitutional.” Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives the federal government the power “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”
But Sussman notes that “somehow this turned into the ability for Congress to regulate the conduct of individual businesses, the output of specific industrial processes, and the makeup of the atmosphere itself. And as we’ve seen, they can’t wait to shut down businesses they don’t like.”
“Eco-Tyranny” also exposes what Sussman calls the Obama administration’s “war” on oil and gas production. He notes that the Obama administration imposed a moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, costing an estimated 137,000 jobs and $400 million to the state of Louisiana.
Furthermore, Obama also suspended exploratory drilling in Alaska, with his Department of Interior stonewalling any applications.
Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar also shut down efforts to harness shale oil in the Mountain West.

The result, Sussman charges, “is a deliberate effort to keep our country dependent on oil imports from the hostile nations of OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries). If our president would simply unleash American industry, OPEC would soil their tunics.”
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...