Designate the Muslim Brotherhood a Foreign Terrorist Organization
by QANTA A. AHMED Qanta A. Ahmed, an associate professor of medicine at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. She is the author of In the Land of Invisible Women.
March 10, 2017
Founded in Egypt in 1928 and with branches or affiliates in over 70 nations, the Muslim Brotherhood today masquerades as a legitimate Islamic institution and a benign democratic actor. It is neither.
Aside from the group’s well-documented links to the financing of terrorism, it was the Brotherhood that birthed modern-day Islamism, a supremacist totalitarian ideology that seeks to undermine pluralist societies and impose hardline theocratic regimes.
The United States should designate the Muslim Brotherhood a foreign terrorist organization (FTO). In the doctrine of political Islam, or Islamism, the faith must be expressed through statehood, a concept conspicuously absent from both the Koran and most of Islam’s 1,400-year history.
Hostile to secularism, and steeped in anti-Semitism, Islamists exploit democratic institutions to further their sectarian aims. They have no intention to share power and every intention to subject nation-states to an invented sharia.
EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE: Even so, the FBI did not search Abedin’s laptop or Yahoo email account at any point in their year-long investigation into possible mishandling of classified information and espionage. Nor did the bureau call Abedin back for additional questioning, despite documentary evidence, as well as the statements from other witnesses, that clearly contradicted her own statements………….Abedin, a Pakistani-American Muslim whose family has deep ties to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the radical Muslim Brotherhood…….
Protective detail assigned to guard former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her two residences complained that her closest aideHuma Abedinoften overrode standard security protocols during trips to the Middle East, and personally changed procedures for handling classified information, including highly sensitive intelligence briefs the CIA prepared for the president, newly released FBI documents reveal.
The security agents, who were interviewed as witnesses in the FBI’s investigation of Clinton’s use of anunauthorized private email serverto send classified information, complained that Abedin had unusual sway over security policies during Clinton’s 2009-2013 tenure at Foggy Bottom.
FBIinterview notesindicate that Abedin, a Pakistani-American Muslim whose family has deep ties to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the radical Muslim Brotherhood, was granted Top Secret security clearance for the first time in 2009, when Clinton named her deputy chief of staff for operations. Abedin said she “did not remember” being read into any Special Access Programs (SAPs) or compartments.
If Clinton wins the presidency next month, she is expected to tapAbedinas her chief of staff, a position that would give her the power to run White House operations — including personnel security and visitor access. The position does not require Senate confirmation.
Failing to call Islamic terror by its name breeds more violence
By Mark Christian– – Mark Christian is the president and executive director of the Global Faith Institute. A former Muslim Sunni imam, he converted from Islam to Christianity. Thursday, June 16, 2016
EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:
These acts of terror are not a hijacking of Islam from the peaceful religion it was designed to be. Rather, these acts are the true face of Islam, and until we acknowledge it for what it is, we will continue to be victims, bowing at the feet of our executioners.
I came to America to escape the consequences of leaving a bellicose and aggressive “religion.” I fled to protect myself and my family from the sword of irredentist Islam, unchanged and unreformed since the Dark Ages. I ran from the orgy of blood and brutality that is Sharia-compliant Islam, only to find that my refuge is blindly permitting such evil to take root and grow here in my adopted land.
I know the root of my fear. I recognize the origins of the dread I feel. If homosexuals are to be killed so brutally for their sin, how much worse will it be for me for my far greater offense of denying Islam? I know, in my heart, who is next, and I weep that our nation may let it be so.
When you are an apostate of Islam, fear and dread follow you. Despite remaining out of sight for days at a time, these feelings never quite leave, they simply remain silent until those quiet moments when I again hear their whispered warnings and hushed threats; imagining them prancing like demons around my lifeless body.
I left Islam. I converted to Christianity, and by doing so, I must be killed.
If you’re going to engage in a foreign policy capitulation, might as well do it when everyone is getting tanked and otherwise occupied. Say, around New Year’s Eve.
Here’s the story. In October, Iran test-fires a nuclear-capable ballistic missile in brazen violation of a Security Council resolution explicitly prohibiting such launches. President Obama does nothing. One month later, Iran does it again. The administration makes a few gestures at the U.N. Then nothing. Then finally, on Dec. 30, the White House announces a few sanctions.
They are weak, aimed mostly at individuals and designed essentially for show. Amazingly, even that proves too much. By 10 p.m. that night, the administration caves. The White House sends out an email saying that sanctions are off — and the Iranian president orders the military to expedite the missile program.
Is there any red line left? First, the Syrian chemical weapons. Then the administration insistence that there would be no nuclear deal unless Iran accounted for its past nuclear activities. (It didn’t.) And unless Iran permitted inspection of its Parchin nuclear testing facility. (It was allowed self-inspection and declared itself clean.) And now, illegal ballistic missiles.
The premise of the nuclear deal was that it would constrain Iranian actions. It’s had precisely the opposite effect. It has deterred us from offering even the mildest pushback to any Iranian violations lest Iran walk away and leave Obama legacy-less.
Iran and Russia have an interest in toppling the House of Saud.
Jan. 4, 2016
That headline question may seem premature, but it’s worth asking if only to reduce the odds that the Saudis are lost as we enter the last perilous year of the Obama Presidency. Iran and Russia have an interest in toppling the House of Saud, and they may be calculating whether President Obama would do anything to stop them.
This comes to mind watching the furious reaction by Iran and its allies to Saudi Arabia’s New Year execution of 47 men for terrorism. Most of the condemned were Sunnis, including members of al Qaeda, but the Saudis also executed prominent Shiite cleric Nemer al-Nemer, who had led a Shiite uprising in 2011.
“The divine hand of revenge will come back on the tyrants who took his life,” said Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Sunday, among many other denunciations across the Shiite Middle East. Protesters ransacked and set fire to the Saudi Embassy in Tehran before police belatedly stopped them. The Saudis responded by cutting off diplomatic relations with Iran.
Nouri al-Maliki, the Iranian ally and former Prime Minister of Iraq, put regime change on the table by saying the execution “will topple the Saudi regime as the crime of executing the martyr al-Sadr did to Saddam” Hussein. He was referring to the death of another prominent Shiite cleric in Iraq in 1980.
Iran already has ample reason to want to topple the Saudis, who are its main antagonist in the Shiite vs. Sunni conflict that has swept the region amid America’s retreat. The two are fighting a proxy war in Yemen, after a Saudi-led coalition intervened to stop a takeover by Iran’s Houthi allies. The Saudis are also the leading supporter of the non-Islamic State Sunnis who are fighting Syria’s ally Bashar Assad. Russia and Iran are allied with Assad.
SAUDI ARABIA HAS 100,000 AIR CONDITIONED TENTS THAT CAN HOUSE 3 MILLION PEOPLE SITTING EMPTY YET HAS TAKEN ZERO REFUGEES
While Europe takes the burden of the migrant crisis
byPAUL JOSEPH WATSON | SEPTEMBER 10, 2015
While European countries are being lectured about their failure to take in enough refugees, Saudi Arabia – which has taken in precisely zero migrants – has 100,000 air conditioned tents that can house over 3 million people sitting empty.
The sprawling network of high quality tents are located in the city of Mina, spreading across a 20 square km valley, and are only used for 5 days of the year by Hajj pilgrims. As the website Amusing Planet reports, “For the rest of the year, Mina remains pretty much deserted.”
The tents, which measure 8 meters by 8 meters, were permanently constructed by the Saudi government in the 1990’s and were upgraded in 1997 to be fire proof. They are divided into camps which include kitchen and bathroom facilities.
The tents could provide shelter for almost all of the 4 million Syrian refugees that have been displaced by the country’s civil war, which was partly exacerbated by Saudi Arabia’s role in funding and arming jihadist groups.
The following photos were taken at the 9/11 Never Forget Mobile Exhibit at the University of North Carolina’s Chapel Hill campus commemorating the attack on New York’s World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
This tribute, presented by the Stephen Siller Tunnel to Towers Foundation, is part of a nationwide tour to remember the victims of 9/11 and to remember the heroism displayed by the first responders on that day. The Stephen Siller Tunnel to Towers Foundation was created to remember the life of Stephen Siller, and the sacrifice he made on September 11, 2001, as well as the sacrifices of every other public servant on that day.
Anyone who looks at the nuclear deal and sees success is living in a world of rainbows and unicorns
Mortimer Zuckerman Mr. Zuckerman is chairman and editor in chief of U.S. News & World Report.
The vaudeville song by Harry Carroll and Joseph McCarthy, popularized by Judy Garland and Barbra Streisand, is all too appropriate to this moment, as we consider the implications of a nuclear Iran and the prospect of mushroom clouds over the Middle East.
President Obama has been chasing a rainbow in his negotiations with Iran. He has forsaken decades of pledges to the civilized world from presidents of both parties. He has misled the American people in repeatedly affirming that the U.S. would never allow revolutionary Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, which would guarantee a new arms race. In fact, one has already started. Credible reports suggest Pakistan is ready to ship an atomic package to Saudi Arabia, the Sunni nation that stands opposed to Shiite Iran’s subversion throughout the region.
But Tehran is working across religious lines as well. Though Hamas is Sunni, Iran has sent millions of dollars to the terror group that controls Gaza to rebuild the tunnel network that the Israeli Defense Force destroyed last summer.
How far Mr. Obama is prepared to chase the negotiation dream is illustrated by the recent candor of his energy secretary, Ernest Moniz, a nuclear physicist who has been party to the negotiations. In 2013 the president answered questions about Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons with these words: “Our assessment continues to be a year or more away, and in fact, actually our estimate is probably more conservative than the estimates of Israeli intelligence services.”
Yet on Monday Mr. Moniz told reporters at Bloomberg a different story: “They are right now spinning. I mean enriching with 9,400 centrifuges out of their roughly 19,000,” he said. “It’s very little time to go forward. That’s two to three months.” How long has the administration held this view? “Oh, quite some time,” Mr. Moniz replied. The Bloomberg report suggests “several years.”
This stunningly casual remark was based on information apparently declassified on April 1. What is Mr. Obama up to? Why was he reassuring in 2013 when he knew it was misleading? Is the declassification intended to create a false sense of urgency?
Compare where we are today with the conditions Mr. Obama laid down two years ago. Referring to Iran’s smiling new president, Hasan Rouhani, Mr. Obama said: “If in fact he is able to present a credible plan that says Iran is pursuing peaceful nuclear energy but we’re not pursuing nuclear weapons, and we are willing to be part of an internationally verified structure so that all other countries in the world know they are not pursuing nuclear weapons, then, in fact, they can improve relations, improve their economy. And we should test that.”
Sure—let’s test it:
• Enrichment: Before the talks began, the Obama administration and U.N. Security Council insisted that Iran stop all uranium enrichment. So did the 2013 framework agreement. Now the deal enshrines Iran’s right to enrich. (more…)