Search This Blog

Friday, October 29, 2010

Charles Martel: Turning Back the Islamic Tide

Posted by Mark Tapson Oct 28th 2010 at 8:45 am

This week marks the anniversary of an epic event that’s no longer commonly known but which nonetheless shaped the future of the Western world, and which may still hold inspiration for the West today.

After the death of the Muslim prophet Mohammed in 632, Islam spread like a bloody tide throughout the Arabian peninsula, north to the Caspian Sea and east through Persia and beyond, westward through Egypt and across North Africa all the way to the Atlantic Ocean. From there it crossed the Straits of Gibraltar to make all of the Iberian peninsula, or al-Andalus, Islamic. In a mere one hundred years, Mohammed’s aggressive legacy was an Islamic empire larger than Rome’s had ever been.


The Battle of Tours
By 732 that Roman empire had devolved into a patchwork of warring barbarian tribes. When Abd-ar-Rahman, the governor of al-Andalus, crossed the Pyrenees with the world’s most successful fighting force and began sweeping through the south of what would become France toward Paris, there was no nation, no central power, no professional army capable of stopping them.

Except one – led by the Frankish duke Charles, the eventual grandfather of Charlemagne. His infantrymen, as Victor Davis Hanson puts it in a fascinating chapter of Carnage and Culture, were “hardened veterans of nearly twenty years of constant combat against a variety of Frankish, German, and Islamic enemies.” Hanson writes that the Roman legions had crumbled “because of the dearth of free citizens who were willing to fight for their own freedom and the values of their civilization.” But Charles had such spirited warriors under his command.

Sometime in late October (the exact date is disputed), on the road between Poitiers and Tours (and thus it is sometimes called the Battle of Poitiers) less than 175 miles from Paris, Abd-ar-Rahman arrayed his cavalry against the solid block of Frankish footsoldiers, which at 30,000 was by some estimates half the size of the Arab and Berber army.

The opposing forces sized each other up for a full week. And then on Saturday morning Abd-ar-Rahman ordered the charge. But his army, which consisted mostly of cavalry and which counted on speed, mobility, and terror to defeat dying empires and undisciplined tribes, could not splinter the better-trained and better-armed Frankish phalanx. At the end of the day’s carnage, both sides regrouped for the next day’s assault.

But at dawn, Charles and his men discovered that the Muslim army had vanished, leaving the booty stolen from ransacked churches behind, as well as their dead (Hanson estimates 10,000) – including Abd-ar-Rahman. It was the beginning of the end for further Muslim incursions into Europe for hundreds of years.

Some contemporary historians downplay the magnitude of the Muslim threat, claiming that Abd-ar-Rahman’s force was only a raiding party. They minimize the significance of the battle’s outcome, too; at least one historian even claims that Europe would have been better off if Islam had conquered it. But Hanson notes that “most of the renowned historians of the 18th and 19th centuries… saw Poitiers as a landmark battle that signaled the high-water mark of Islamic advance into Europe.” Edward Creasey included it among his The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World. Many believe that if Charles – whom the Pope now dubbed Martel, “the Hammer” – had not stopped Abd-ar-Rahman at Tours, there would have been nothing to prevent Europe from ultimately becoming Islamic. Edward Gibbon called Charles “the savior of Christendom” and wrote in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire in 1776 that if not for Charles’ victory, “perhaps the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford.”

If only Gibbon could see Oxford now. Not only is the interpretation of the Koran taught there, but Islam thrives in Oxford, thanks partly to the patronage of dhimmi Prince Charles. In his essay “Islam in Oxford,” faux moderate Muslim scholar Muqtadar Khan writes smugly that

Gibbon would have been surprised to learn the lesson that military defeats do not stop the advance of civilizations and the globalization of Islam is unimpeded by the material and military weaknesses of the Muslim world.

Apart from his dubious assertion that Islam has anything to do with the advance of civilization, Khan is right. Today the Islamic invasion of Europe and the rest of the West is of the demographic, not military, sort, as Mark Steyn argued in his alarming (and yet entertaining) America Alone. The continent faces an immigration crisis from a generation of young Muslims who not only are willfully unassimilated, but who are waging a cultural and physical aggression against their hosts, establishing parallel communities ruled by sharia and “no-go” zones of violence toward infidels. Germany’s Chancellor Merkel confessed recently that their multicultural experiment has failed, miserably; that failure is nowhere more evident than in England, which is on the path to civil war with its decidedly unicultural, radicalized young Muslim population.

“Nothing can stop the spread of Islam,” insisted Islamic apologist Reza Aslan recently. “There are those who would try, but it simply will not happen. Absolutely nothing can stop the spread of Islam.”

Charles Martel begged to differ in 732. And now contemporary “Hammers” have arisen to lead the resistance against a new wave of militant Islam, terrorism and sharia. The conflict is different now – it’s not as simple and elemental as two armies facing off – and so the new Martels are not necessarily soldiers. But they are warriors nonetheless in the so-called Clash of Civilizations, culture warriors like Dutch politician Geert Wilders, activists Pamela Geller and Brigitte Gabriel, terrorism expert Steven Emerson, authors Robert Spencer and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, policy analyst Frank Gaffney, and many more, all putting themselves on the front lines against the stealth jihad.

The tide was turned back before, and it can be turned back again – by such “free citizens willing to fight for their own freedom and the values of their civilization,” as Martel and his men once were.

Big Gov't, Spending Main Concern Among Voters

John Jessup
CBN News Washington Correspondent

It is the last weekend before what could become an historic midterm election and the candidates are making one last push to get votes.

While many analysts are focusing on the weak economy as the big issue, many voters say their number one concern is the big spending in Washington, D.C.

It's now crunch time. The finish line is in sight and the candidates are delivering their closing arguments.

The state of the economy is what's motivating many voters, but for others there's also a deeper issue at play -- big spending with big deficits in Washington by a government that many Americans believe has become way too big and powerful.

"I think a lot of people aren't happy with all the spending and all the laws and things that are happening," said Trebis Knepper, a West Virginia voter.

It's what inspired the Tea Party movement. Also, for many unsatisfied voters, President Barack Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress are the problem.

"I don't think a majority of people in the country are for the large government spending that the Democratic Party is in favor of," said Biller Kilmer, another West Virginia voter.

The public certainly doesn't approve of the way Democrats have ran Congress.

A new Rasmussen reports survey shows a whopping 65 percent of likely voters said that if they had the chance Tuesday, they would vote to replace the entire Congress.

Also, even though he's not on the ballot, Obama is a key issue for many voters. That also isn't good news for the Democrats, because voters don't think Obama deserves to be re-elected either.

Fifty-six percent would like to see the president fired in 2012, according to a survey by a Democratic pollster.

As many analysts have pointed out, this midterm election looks a lot like 1994 when voters also revolted against big government and government-run health care.

Just like what happened sixteen years ago, it looks like another voter tidal wave is about to sweep Washington and bring in a very different Congress.

'Cool It' Movie Offers Global Warming Alternative

Paul Strand
CBN News Washington Sr. Correspondent

Self-proclaimed "skeptical environmentalist" Bjorn Lomborg says there's way too much panic over global warming.

In his new documentary, "Cool It," Lomborg offers alternative ways to protecting the environment without overreacting -- and overspending.

"Global warming is real, but it's not the scary, end-of-all-things that it's been made out to be in Al Gore's film," Lomborg told CBN News. "And in some way that's crucial, because that scare diminishes life quality. I mean, we talk to kids who think they're going to die because of global warming right now."

The documentary claims governments are pledging to spend trillions of dollars on programs that do little good. For example, European Union nations say they'll spend $250 billion a year on climate control for the rest of the century.

For more on the documentary, CBN News spoke with "Cool It" producer Terry Botwick. Click play to watch.

"The net effect will be to reduce temperature by 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. So we're essentially already spending $250 billion to do no good," Lomborg explained. "We say, 'Why don't we spend that money and spend it much better?'"

"Cool It" suggests the world should instead spend $100 billion a year on intense crash programs to develop alternate forms of energy fast.

Lomborg points out that even if you don't believe in global warming, you should want a world free of fossil fuels.

"They pollute, they cause a security problem and, fundamentally, there's a lot of things that would be nicer if we could just simply produce energy off our rooftops or in our own backyards," he said. "Or we could grow our own oil fields out in the sea with algae, for instance."

"Cool It" is set to be released in the United States and Canada Nov. 12.

Planned Parenthood's History - You must know the truth about its founder, Margaret Sanger.

The article at the bottom of this post was written in today's newpaper, but lets review the history of the founder of Planned Parenthood.

In Her Own Words

"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race
(Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)

Copyright © 2001 Diane S. Dew www.dianedew.com

Margaret Sanger (1883-1966)
On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people
On sterilization & racial purification:
Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.

On the right of married couples to bear children:
Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." Birth Control Review, April 1932

On the purpose of birth control:
The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage:
"This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in the solution of marriage problems... Knowledge of sex truths frankly and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable - these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger generation." Margaret Sanger, Happiness in Marriage (Bretano's, New York, 1927)

On the extermination of blacks:
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon

On respecting the rights of the mentally ill:
In her "Plan for Peace," Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed "feebleminded." Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107

On adultery:
A woman's physical satisfaction was more important than any marriage vow, Sanger believed. Birth Control in America, p. 11

On marital sex:
"The marriage bed is the most degenerating influence in the social order," Sanger said. (p. 23) [Quite the opposite of God's view on the matter: "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." (Hebrews 13:4)

On abortion:
"Criminal' abortions arise from a perverted sex relationship under the stress of economic necessity, and their greatest frequency is among married women." The Woman Rebel - No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.

On the YMCA and YWCA:
"...brothels of the Spirit and morgues of Freedom!"), The Woman Rebel - No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.

On the Catholic Church's view of contraception:
"...enforce SUBJUGATION by TURNING WOMAN INTO A MERE INCUBATOR." The Woman Rebel - No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.

On motherhood:
"I cannot refrain from saying that women must come to recognize there is some function of womanhood other than being a child-bearing machine." What Every Girl Should Know, by Margaret Sanger (Max Maisel, Publisher, 1915) [Jesus said: "Daughters of Jerusalem, weep... for your children. For, behold, the days are coming, in which they shall say, Blessed (happy) are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the breasts which never gave suck." (Luke 23:24)]



"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)
Editor of The Birth Control Review from 1917 to 1938.
Founder of Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the world.

Her goal in life:
Sanger admitted her entire life's purpose was to promote birth control. An Autobiography, p. 194

Helped to establish the research bureau that financed "the pill," she contributed toward the work of the German doctor who developed the IUD. "Ernst Graefenberg and His Ring," Mt. Sinai Journal of Medicine, July-Aug. 1975, p. 345, in Margaret Sanger: Father of Modern Society, by Elasah Drogin

Sanger espoused the thinking of eugenicists -- similar to Darwin's "survival of the fittest" -- but related the concept to human society, saying the genetic makeup of the poor, and minorities, for example, was inferior. Pivot of Civilization, by Margaret Sanger, 1922, p. 80

On mandatory sterilization of the poor:
One of Sanger's greatest influences, sexologist/eugenicist Dr. Havelock Ellis (with whom she had an affair, leading to her divorce from her first husband), urged mandatory sterilization of the poor as a prerequisite to receiving any public aid. The Problem of Race Regeneration, by Havelock Ellis, p. 65, in Margaret Sanger: Father of Modern Society, p. 18. Ellis believed that any sex was acceptable, as long as it hurt no one. The Sage of Sex, A Life of Havelock Ellis, by Arthur Calder-Marshall, p. 88

On eradicating 'bad stocks':
The goal of eugenicists is "to prevent the multiplication of bad stocks," wrote Dr. Ernst Rudin in the April 1933 Birth Control Review (of which Sanger was editor). Another article exhorted Americans to "restrict the propagation of those physically, mentally and socially inadequate."



Sanger featured in Life magazine, 1937, "Margaret Sanger celebrates Birth Control Victory."

Planned Parenthood sues state over CHIP’s lack of birth control coverage
By Associated Press | Posted: Thursday, October 28, 2010 9:57 pm

HELENA - Planned Parenthood of Montana has sued the state for denying teen girls access to birth control through Montana's low-income health insurance program.

Montana Public Radio reported that teens insured through CHIP, part of Healthy Montana Kids, cannot obtain birth control if it's being used only to prevent pregnancy, though they can get birth control to treat acne or heavy menstrual cycles.

Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union say the selective denial of birth control is a violation of privacy and equal protection rights in the state constitution.

"It includes the ability to make medical decisions, with your doctor, without interference from the government," said Niki Zupanic of the ACLU.

About 25,000 children are insured through Healthy Montana Kids, and about 10 percent of them are girls ages 15 to 19.

A hearing has been set for May, meaning the Legislature could take up the matter before it reaches a courtroom, when lawmakers convene in January.

Funding for contraceptive coverage was pulled from a last-minute budget deal struck by the 2009 Legislature. Republican Sen. Keith Bales, one of the negotiators, said most Republicans believe the use of contraceptives should be a matter decided between youths and their parents.

"Having said that, the government shouldn't be financing contraceptives for youth, because then that circumvents the family," Bales said.

But Democratic Rep. Chuck Hunter of Helena said the state would see a financial benefit by preventing teen pregnancies.

CHIP covers the cost of prenatal care, delivery and postnatal care for teen mothers. The state paid for 43 teen births last year, spending more than $720,000 to do so, according to state documents.

"If you're a Medicaid family or a family with private health insurance, it's still a family issue. Families routinely discuss this with their children. But the fact is, CHIP families are prevented from having that discussion because there's no benefit available to them," Hunter said.

Mark Levin - Oct 14th - Alinsky's Rules for Radicals (Part 2

Mark Levin - Oct 14th - Alinsky's Rules for Radicals (Part 1 of 3)

.Understanding the Alinsky Method

October 28, 2010

“I feel confident that I could persuade a millionaire on a Friday to subsidize a revolution for Saturday out of which he would make a huge profit on Sunday even though he was certain to be executed on Monday.” - Radical Marxist Saul Alinsky

First, here’s a background information about the “Alinsky Method” conceptualized by radical Marxist and propagandist Saul

Saul Alinsky and his devoted student Barack Obama aka Barry Sotoero
Alinsky:

“Obama learned his lesson well. I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday.” –Letter from L. DAVID ALINSKY, son of Neo-Marxist Saul Alinsky.
Obama helped fund ‘Alinsky Academy’: “The Woods Fund, a nonprofit on which Obama served as paid director from 1999 to December 2002, provided startup funding and later capital to the Midwest Academy…. Obama sat on the Woods Fund board alongside William Ayers, founder of the Weather Underground domestic terrorist organization…. ‘Midwest describes itself as ‘one of the nation’s oldest and best-known schools for community organizations, citizen organizations and individuals committed to progressive social change.’… Midwest teaches Alinsky tactics of community organizing.”

Hillary, Obama and the Cult of Alinsky: “True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism, Alinsky taught. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within. Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties…. Many leftists view Hillary as a sell-out because she claims to hold moderate views on some issues. However, Hillary is simply following Alinsky’s counsel to do and say whatever it takes to gain power.

“Obama is also an Alinskyite…. Obama spent years teaching workshops on the Alinsky method. In 1985 he began a four-year stint as a community organizer in Chicago, working for an Alinskyite group called the Developing Communities Project…. Camouflage is key to Alinsky-style organizing. While trying to build coalitions of black churches in Chicago, Obama caught flak for not attending church himself. He became an instant churchgoer.” (By Richard Poe, 11-27-07)

So what the heck is this Alinsky Method? It is a radical technique or strategy designed for extreme Marxists or socialists to achieve and preserve absolute political power. For the freedom-loving citizens of this country or any country, it is very, very crucial to clearly and thoroughly grasp just how the “squeezing out” process takes place. It has been said that this Alinsky method stemmed from a mechanism called “The Delphi Technique”, and this Hitlerian technique of manipulation is founded on the fact that individuals in groups tend to share a common knowledge base and show certain distinguishable traits known as “group dynamics.”

Saul Alinsky in his own words:

“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history… the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.” (Saul Alinsky’s dedication of his book “Rules for radicals”)

“What I have to say in this book is not the arrogance of unsolicited advice. It is the experience and counsel that so many young people have questioned me about through all-night sessions on hundreds of campuses in America. It is for those young radicals who are committed to the fight, committed to life.”

“What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away”.

“There’s another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families – more than seventy million people – whose income range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year [in 1971]. They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hard hat. They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging. If we fail to communicate with them, if we don’t encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let’s not let it happen by default.”

“The Revolutionary force today has two targets, moral as well as material. Its young protagonists are one moment reminiscent of the idealistic early Christians, yet they also urge violence and cry, ‘Burn the system down!’ They have no illusions about the system, but plenty of illusions about the way to change our world. It is to this point that I have written this book.” (Prologue of “Rules for Radicals)

“A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage — the political paradise of communism.” p.10

“An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth — truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing…. To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations….” pp.10-11 (Since the radical has no truth, everything and anything spewed by them, cannot be taken as their position. Examples of this are the many changes of position in topics assumed by the Clintons, Obama’s speech in which he claimed he would change the NAFTA, and his assistant telling Canadians politicians that those were just words, etc.)

“The tenth rule… is you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments…. It involves sifting the multiple factors which combine in creating the circumstances at any given time… Who, and how many will support the action?… If weapons are needed, then are appropriated weapons available? Availability of means determines whether you will be underground or above ground; whether you will move quickly or slowly…” p.36 (Here you see why the proponents of overloading our government with the scourge of welfare, and countless illegal immigrants, advocate health care for all and amnesty for illegals as the moral thing to do.)

“From the moment the organizer enters a community he lives, dreams… only one thing and that is to build the mass power base of what he calls the army. Until he has developed that mass power base, he confronts no major issues…. Until he has those means and power instruments, his ‘tactics’ are very different from power tactics. Therefore, every move revolves around one central point: how many recruits will this bring into the organization, whether by means of local organizations, churches, service groups, labor Unions, corner gangs, or as individuals.” “Change comes from power, and power comes from organization.” p.113

“An organizer must stir up sissatisfaction and discontent… He must create a mechanism that can drain off the underlying guilt for having accepted the previous situation for so long a time. Out of this mechanism, a new community organization arises….
“The job then is getting the people to move, to act, to participate; in short, to develop and harness the necessary power to effectively conflict with the prevailing patterns and change them. When those prominent in the status quo turn and label you an ‘agitator’ they are completely correct, for that is, in one word, your function—to agitate to the point of conflict.” p.117

“Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.”

“Never go outside the expertise of your people. When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat…. [and] the collapse of communication.

“Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.”

“A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”

“A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time….”

“Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.”

“The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”

“The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.”

“If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside… every positive has its negative.”

“The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”

“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and ‘frozen.’… “…any target can always say, ‘Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?’ When your ‘freeze the target,’ you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments…. Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the ‘others’ come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target…’ “One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.” (pps.127-134)

“‘The organizer’s first job is to create the issues or problems,’ and ‘organizations must be based on many issues.’ The organizer ‘must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act. . . . An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent.’”

This is what Unions say:

BREAKING THE LAW TO WIN

(In Memory of Victor G. Reuther)

Why are the unions so weak you ask

Well, let me tell you a story.

It asks the bosses to replace the workers

that they forced out on strike.

Why don't you replace Jesse,

the strike is going on two years.

Jesse has given up worryin'

and went back to his Budweiser beer.

Why don't you replace Rose

replace her broken nose

replace her broken husband

replace her broken home.

Why don't you replace Eddie,

he just drove away one day,

leaving his wife and children

he's somewhere down south they say.

And why don't you replace sweet Judy,

she worked for you 28 years

She used to dream of retirement

now she's filled with anger and fear.

And if your so damn good at replacing,

why don't you replace one more.

Gary was found by his daughter

with blood all over the garage floor.

Others still stand by their barrels,

flames show their faces at night,

swearing at who crossed the picket line,

swearing at who just might.

Unions are right back like it was in the '30s

when goons and cops were in their glory.

A law has replaced the workers mightiest weapon

BUT WAIT

You're still going to have to retake the factory
you're still going to have to sit down,
still have to fight the goons and the cops
and disrupt production til it stops.

Demand your union elite
step back and get out of the way
You will have to fight guns and tear gas
and beware of pepper-gas spray

Place your women and children
in front of the factory
and melt the hearts
of the National Guard
Get your neighbors to stand
and support you
with red, white and blue
strike signs.

You will have to ignore their injunctions
and break their immoral laws
TO WIN

IN THE END, YOU MAY
START A REVOLUTION
SO THIS WILL NEVER
HAPPEN AGAIN.

written by Dennis Serdel UAW
September 10, 2004

Muslim Brotherhood Penetration of the US Government: A Case Study

Posted by Team B Oct 27th 2010 at 11:25 am

Part 15 of a serialization of Shariah – The Threat to America, the report of Team B II of the Center for Security Policy. Here, we study how a Muslim Brotherhood agent, Abruhraman Alamoudi, infiltrated the US government through two presidential administrations, and penetrated the US military.

You can obtain a copy of the full report at:
http://www.amazon.com/Shariah-America-Exercise-Competitive-Analysis/dp/098229476X

Ikhwan Operative Gains Access Through Clinton Administration

One of the most successful Muslim Brotherhood influence operations in support of the phased plan that has been uncovered to date involved arguably the Ikhwan’s preeminent figure in America during the 1990s: Abdurahman Alamoudi. His is a tale of a sustained effort to penetrate and compromise both Democratic and Republican administrations and their partisan organizations.

Alamoudi immigrated from Eritrea in 1979 and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1996. During the 1990s, he parlayed his role as founder and executive director of the American Muslim Council (AMC) and his involvement with nearly two-dozen other Muslim organizations in this country into entrée to the White House itself.

This access afforded Alamoudi various opportunities for mounting influence operations against the Clinton administration. According to multiple sources, in 1995, Alamoudi helped President Clinton and the ACLU develop a presidential guideline entitled “Religious Expression in Public School.” In November of that year, Alamoudi and 23 other Muslim leaders met with President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore.

On December 8, Clinton’s National Security Adviser, Anthony Lake, met with Alamoudi and several other AMC Board members. On February 8, 1996, First Lady Hillary Clinton penned a newspaper column based on talking points provided by Alamoudi. Later that month, Mrs. Clinton asked AMC to draw up a guest list for a reception marking the end of Ramadan that was to be held at the White House.

Alamoudi also parlayed his access at the highest levels of the U.S. government into the lead role in establishing the Muslim Chaplain Program for the Department of Defense, and then serving as the certifying authority for Muslim chaplains serving U.S. servicemen and women. He was also the founder and leader of the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council (AMAFVAC).

In 1993, the Defense Department certified AMAFVAC as one of two organizations (the other was the Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences) authorized to approve and endorse Muslim chaplains.

From about 1993 to 1998, the Pentagon would retain Alamoudi on an unpaid basis to nominate and approve Muslim chaplain candidates for the U.S. military. Among the chaplains Alamoudi hired was James Yee, who was arrested in 2003 by the U.S. government on charges he was supporting the jihadis detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.


The Muslim men working with Yee at Guantanamo, uniformed and contract employees (linguists), were all convicted on charges including mishandling classified information and espionage.

Infiltrating Republican activists and the Bush Administration

In 1998, Alamoudi provided at least $20,000 in checks enabling Republican activist Grover Norquist to establish what would become a Muslim Brotherhood front organization targeted at penetrating GOP circles and the campaign of then-Governor George W. Bush.

The new entity was called the Islamic Free Market Institute (better known as the Islamic Institute, or II). Alamoudi also detailed his long-time deputy, Khaled Saffuri, to serve as II’s first executive director, with Norquist as the Chairman of the Board.

As a result of these connections, Alamoudi was among a group of Muslim Brotherhood operatives who were invited on May 1, 2000 to meet with Bush in the Texas governor’s mansion. Saffuri was designated the Bush campaign’s Muslim outreach coordinator and Norquist assisted another prominent Brother, Sami al-Arian, to obtain a commitment from Candidate Bush that, if elected, he would prohibit the use of classified intelligence evidence in deportation proceedings. This was a priority for al-Arian since his brother-in-law was being held at the time by federal immigration authorities on the basis of such evidence.

After the election, a member of the Islamic Institute’s board of directors has myriad and longstanding connections to other Muslim Brotherhood organizations, Suhail Khan, was appointed to be the gatekeeper for the Muslim community in the White House Office of Public Liaison. Such relationships and placements afforded the Ikhwan unprecedented opportunities for influence operations against the U.S. government, especially after 9/11.

‘We are all supporters of Hamas’

Unfortunately for Alamoudi, his own ability directly to exploit such opportunities had by that time been irreparably damaged by his appearance at an anti-Israel rally outside the White House in October 2000. On that occasion, he carelessly gave the game away, when he declared on video:

“I have been labeled … as being a supporter of Hamas. Anybody supporters of Hamas here? [Roars of approval from the crowd.] We are all supporters of Hamas. [More roars.] I wish they added that I am also a supporter of Hezbollah. [More roars.]”

Alamoudi arrested as part of assassination plot

Then, in 2003, Alamoudi was arrested at Heathrow Airport (UK) on his way back from Libya with $340,000 in cash given to him by Libyan President Muammar Qaddafi for jihad. The money was to be used to underwrite a plot involving two U.K.-based al Qaeda operatives intending to assassinate Crown Prince (now King) Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

Alamoudi was extradited to the United States where, in the Eastern District of Virginia, he pled guilty to and was convicted of terrorism-related charges. He was proven to be a senior al Qaeda financier, who moved at least $1 million dollars to the terrorist organization. Alamoudi had also been caught on recorded conversations supporting acts of terrorism, terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hizbollah, and clearly stated his objective of making America a Muslim nation. Alamoudi is now serving a 23-year sentence in federal prison.

Before his fall, Abdurahman Alamoudi was one of the leaders of the global Islamic Movement and one of its most successful influence operatives. His arrest and conviction should have sent shock waves through the U.S. intelligence community, particularly its counterintelligence units, since Alamoudi’s blown cover provided a reality check on the extent of shariah’s stealth jihad in this country, and how badly we have been penetrated.

Here was, after all, proof that an al Qaeda and Hamas operative had enjoyed access to the most senior levels of the American government. Thanks to that access, he was allowed – among other things – to create and run the program for selecting and placing members of his team to proselytize as Muslim chaplains in what can be the two most lucrative target populations for jihadist recruiters: the U.S. military and imprisoned felons.

Far from regarding the Alamoudi revelations as a wake-up call, however, administrations of both parties transferred his responsibilities for the chaplains to the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the largest Muslim Brotherhood front in this country.

In the absence of a serious effort to understand the true nature of shariah and the determined campaign being mounted to insinuate it into this country, together with an aggressive counter-intelligence operation aimed at defeating such influence and penetration operations, it is predictable that the next Alamoudi will be able to do vastly more damage than did the original.

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Climate Fools Day

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

The Carbon Sense Coalition today called on Australians and Americans to join the world in celebrating Climate Fools Day on October 27th.

The Chairman of “Carbon Sense”, Mr Viv Forbes, said that Climate Fools Day was named by protestors outside the British House of Commons on 27th October 2008 when the house was debating the Climate Bill.

Forbes explained:

“As the first October snow in 70 years blanketed the House (and a big swathe of Europe), MP’s droned on about the need to fight global warming.

“For six hours MP’s reassured one another about the desperate need to be the first government in the world to saddle its unfortunate people with a burden estimated at £15 billion a year. As snow continued to blanket Westminster, only two MP’s questioned the huge cost and dubious benefits from the energy taxes and green energy rorts they were imposing.

“Christopher Booker of the Daily Telegraph noted gloomily:
“If the Bill's intent is taken seriously, the cost of cutting our CO2 emissions by 80 per cent would cripple our economy, closing down much of what remains of our industry and rendering most motorised transport impossible.”

“Nigel Lawson said in the House of Lords at the time:
“The Bill will go down in history, and future generations will see it, as the most absurd Bill that this House and Parliament has ever had to examine".

“The weather gods were the first to draw attention to the stupidity of the Climate Fools in Westminster. Weeks of icy weather froze the whole of Britain, wind turbines froze, solar panels were covered in snow, but coal, gas and nuclear power stations running at full power for 24/7 averted calamity. Power lines broke, stopping electric trains - on one line in Scotland the only train running was an old steam train burning coal.

"And ignoring the consensus predictions of global warming, a Snowy Owl, native of the Arctic Circle, arrived in Cornwall in December 2009, heralding another cold winter in which the sea froze on the Dorset coast.

“Luckily, the appalling foolishness which started at Westminster has not spread far, but sceptics world-wide will be celebrating Climate Fools Day to ensure the suicidal example of once-great Britain is not followed anywhere else.

Forbes said that word on Climate Fools Day had already reached Siberia because Siberian swans, which usually reach Britain in November, flew into Gloucestershire on 18th October, 2010.

“Winter usually follows the swans, and Westminster is again likely to be blanketed in snow when Climate Fools Day protestors again gather outside the British Parliament.

“Maybe our politicians should abandon their computerised climate models and take up bird watching?”

US publisher, Stairway Press, have chosen the Climate Fools Day gathering in Westminster to make the inaugural presentation of the "Ernst-Georg Beck Award for Scientific Integrity and Competence" (BASIC). Piers Corbyn gets the US$10,000 award for “his untiring efforts both as a climate skeptic and for his outstanding success in long-range weather forecasting”.

For more information on Climate Fools Day see: http://climatefoolsday.com

Authorised by:
Viv Forbes
Chairman, The Carbon Sense Coalition
Rosevale, Qld, Australia
www.carbon-sense.com

The Greatest Threat to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in the United States Today

October 27, 2010

by Gary Marbut, president
Montana Shooting Sports Association

Without ammunition, our firearms are just awkward clubs, and our cherished right to Keep and Bear Arms is worthless – literally worth nothing. Let me explain this threat.

To the best of my information, there are only two plants in the United States that manufacture smokeless propellant to load ammunition for our firearms. All else is imported, from Canada, Scandinavia, Europe, Israel, and Australia primarily.

These two plants are both owned by giant defense and government contractors for whom sales of powder for civilian ammunition consumption is but a tiny fraction of their business. One is the General Dynamics plant in St. Marks, Florida, which produces for Hodgden, Winchester and others, and the Alliant plant in Connecticut which produces for the Alliant family of companies and for the Lake City Arsenal (currently under Alliant management).

If Obama were to instruct his appointed Secretary of Defense to quietly lean on these defense contractors to quit selling smokeless powder for civilian consumption or put their next contract for an aircraft carrier at risk, I believe they’d bail on civilian powder sales in a heartbeat. And, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could end smokeless powder imports tomorrow with a stroke of her pen.

Sure, some people in the U.S. have a fair amount of ammunition and reloading components squirreled away, but those supplies won’t last forever. Actually, at the current rate of consumption, ammunition in supply chain and in individual possession would last between one and two years, although many lightly-inventoried people would run out in days or weeks, not months or years.

That’s why the Montana Shooting Sports Association has crafted a bill for the 2011 Montana legislative session to encourage the production of smokeless powder, primers and brass on a small scale, a scale that should be reproduced on a state-by-state basis.

Many of the small countries of central and eastern Europe have their own in-country powder production. However, because of scale issues in manufacturing, these small-scale plants can only survive with significant state subsidy.

In the U.S., the incentive and legal infrastructure are a bit different. According to our novel U.S. system of political thought, the primary purpose (maybe only valid purpose) of government is to protect the liberties of the people. One essential and well-recognized liberty is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Since the RKBA is worthless without ammunition, it may be validly argued that supporting supplies of ammunition components is a legitimate government function. Thus, state subsidy of ammunition component manufacture is worthy of consideration, even by minimalist libertarians.

The bill MSSA will have before the 2011 Montana Legislature offers four incentives:

1) Provides a general, 20-year tax amnesty for any new business established in Montana to manufacture smokeless powder, primers or brass. This gives up no current state revenue because no such manufacturers exist in Montana now. And, it may stimulate new jobs in Montana. Terms for qualification and manufacturing are defined in the bill;

2) Provides product liability shelter for manufacturers;

3) Makes any such manufacturers eligible for any existing economic development programs in the state; and

4) Asserts Tenth Amendment prerogative to regulate exclusively with state regulation any chemicals used in the manufacturing process (many of the best powders are made overseas and are good because they are made using chemicals banned by the federal EPA).

The MSSA draft bill for this effort is located at:
http://www.progunleaders.org/lcq2010/powder.html

As Montana has been the source of other trail-breaking initiatives (e.g., the Montana Firearms Freedom Act), this idea is available for implementation in other states. MSSA believes it would be healthy if every state had in-state production of ammunition components sufficient to meet the needs of the state’s consumers.

Geert Wilders Trial: the Dutch Grand Inquisitor Speaks

Posted by Andrew G. Bostom Oct 27th 2010 at 5:22 am

Geert Corstens, President of the Netherlands Supreme Court, maintains in Orwellian fashion that Dutch Parliamentarian leader Geert Wilders is “undermining” Dutch jurisprudence. As reported here,

Critical statements on jurisprudence such as Wilders has made during the proceedings against him have an “undermining” effect on jurisprudence, particularly as the leader of the PVV [Wilders’ Party for Freedom] is also still a parliamentarian, according to Corstens. MPs should contribute to the stability of the constitutional state, said the president on television programme Buitenhof.

This past Friday (10/22/10), because the three sitting judges evidenced unacceptable bias, a special chamber of the Amsterdam district court ruled that the ongoing case against Wilders must be restarted with a different panel of judges. During a dinner in May 2010, Tom Schalken, one of the judges who gave the order to the Public Prosecutor’s Office (OM) to prosecute Wilders, attempted to persuade Islamologist Professor Hans Jansen, an expert witness for Wilders’ defense, that the Dutch MP was guilty. Specifically, Jansen insists,

…over and over [Schalken] steered the conversation towards the Wilders trial… to convince me of the correctness of his [Schalken’s] decision to drag Wilders to court.

And now another “objective” jurist—the President of the Netherlands Supreme Court himself—has made plain his own hideous bias proclaiming that Wilders defense of freedom of speech, let alone fair legal proceedings, somehow undermines Dutch “jurisprudence.”

The Dutch Grand Inquisitor has spoken.

Below are relevant extracts from “The Grand Inquisitor” in Feodor Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov (Translation by H.P. Blavatsky)

“Would Thou venture thither with Thy vague and undefined promise of freedom, which men, dull and unruly as they are by nature, are unable so much as to understand, which they avoid and fear?—for never was there anything more unbearable to the human race than personal freedom!”….

…Having disburdened his heart, the Inquisitor waits for some time to hear his prisoner speak in His turn. His silence weighs upon him. He has seen that his captive has been attentively listening to him all the time, with His eyes fixed penetratingly and softly on the face of his jailer, and evidently bent upon not replying to him. The old man longs to hear His voice, to hear Him reply; better words of bitterness and scorn than His silence. Suddenly He rises; slowly and silently approaching the Inquisitor, He bends towards him and softly kisses the bloodless, four-score and-ten-year-old lips. That is all the answer. The Grand Inquisitor shudders. There is a convulsive twitch at the corner of his mouth. He goes to the door, opens it, and addressing Him, “Go,” he says, “go, and return no more… do not come again… never, never!’ and—lets Him out into the dark night. The prisoner vanishes.”

“And the old man?” [asks Alyosha]

“The kiss burns his heart, but the old man remains firm in his own ideas and unbelief.” [replies Ivan]

State Department’s Misguided Outreach to Muslims

State Department’s Misguided Outreach to Muslims
Posted by Frank Gaffney Oct 27th 2010 at 6:03 am

Excellent catch by Barry Rubin who has just uncovered the latest example of the Obama administration’s seriously misguided “outreach” to Muslims! As Rubin notes, the U.S. Consulate-General in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia played host to Trita Parsi, founder and President of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC). During his taxpayer-underwritten visit, Parsi chaired a roundtable discussion hosted by Consul-General Tom Duffy.

The astounding part: Trita Parsi has been identified by Iranian state-controlled media as part of “the Iran lobby.” In that role, Parsi featured prominently in an expose of Tehran’s influence operation published late last year by Center for Security Policy Senior Fellow Clare Lopez in a monograph entitled Rise of the Iran Lobby.

Among other devastating findings, Lopez, a former CIA operations officer, reported that:

…When U.S. taxpayer dollars provided to [the National Endowment for Democracy] are granted to NIAC, the ultimate beneficiary is actually an organization closely affiliated with the Iranian regime. And NIAC, which channels these funds to Iran, is itself called an Iranian lobbying organization by that regime, whose purpose is to promote the positions of Tehran to Washington, policymaking circles.

Under the leadership of Trita Parsi, and amply funded by a host of generally left-wing foundations, NIAC conducts an active agenda of interviews, lobbying, and outreach that has succeeded in developing a complex network of influence throughout the Washington academic, legislative, media, NGO, and policymaking communities. Thanks as well to an echo chamber it enjoys from a retinue of prominent American Middle East experts, an authority on Iranian matters has been conferred on NIAC that is unmatched by any opposing organization in the United States.

The evidence continues to accumulate of that the Obama administration insists on “reach out” to all the wrong sorts. It is hard to imagine, though, a more benighted diplomatic initiative than using an Iranian lobbyist to represent the United States in contacts with the Saudis. We need a new Congress ASAP – one that will provide adult supervision over and real accountability concerning Team Obama’s dealings with Muslims who are not on our side.

How Liberals Argue

Group Asks IRS to Probe Christian Voter Guides

Wed, Oct. 27, 2010 Posted: 06:33 AM EDT

A group dedicated to promoting ethics in government and public life has asked the Internal Revenue Service to investigate whether voter guides distributed by a Christian nonprofit violate federal tax code.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) submitted the request Tuesday, accusing The Pray in Jesus Name Project of passing out overtly partisan guides that rate politicians as faith-friendly or anti-Jesus.

"Federal law prohibits preachers from politicking from the pulpit, but that is exactly what Pray in Jesus Name Project is asking clergy across the country to do," said CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan in a statement. "Pray in Jesus Name is attempting to use churches to advance its overt political agenda; any churches that go along with this plan and distribute the guides will risk their own tax status in the process."

The Pray in Jesus Name Project has made available "Shock and Awe" voter guides for Christians that report how Senate and Congressional incumbents voted on certain issues – namely on abortion, free speech, health care and homosexuality issues. The group makes it clear on its website that "non-partisan voter guides that simply report how Congress voted are fully authorized by the IRS for distribution in churches."

Christians are being encouraged to help fax the voter guides to 125,000 pastors in all 50 states ahead of the Nov. 2 elections.

Backing the project, Mathew Staver of Liberty Counsel maintains that outside of express endorsement of or opposition to candidates for political offices, pastors and churches may engage in many other permissible activities.

CREW, however, contends that the voter guides and legislative scorecards "appear to contain clear partisan commentary" and "while there are no votes to rank the candidates, it is clear through the 'faith friendly' designation which candidate is supported."

"The guides narrowly focus on a few select issues, including public prayers, abortion, and legislative issues affecting the rights of gay citizens," CREW wrote in its letter to the IRS. "Incumbents' votes on these narrow issues are further characterized with biased labels such as 'Pro-Abortion,' 'Pro-Homosexual,' 'Anti-Jesus,' and 'Anti-Free Speech.'"

CREW has requested that the IRS take action against any church that distributes the guides.

"The IRS should investigate whether Pray in Jesus Name is violating its own tax status and warn churches that by distributing the voter guides created [by]this group, they are jeopardizing their own 501(c)(3) status," said Sloan. "Just as ‘a rose by any other name is still a rose,' political campaign intervention called voter guides is still political campaign intervention."

The probe request comes weeks after dozens of pastors around the country defied the 1954 IRS rule – preventing organizations with tax exemption from participating in a political campaign – and endorsed political candidates from the pulpit on Sunday. Pulpit Freedom Sunday was organized by the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal firm, which believes pastors have a right to use the Bible’s teachings to speak on the positions of electoral candidates or current government officials.

The event was intended to get the government out of the pulpit moreso than get politics into the pulpit.

"Pastors and churches shouldn’t live in fear of being punished or penalized by the government – in this case, the IRS," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley. "Churches should be allowed to decide for themselves what they want to talk about."

Meanwhile, The Pray in Jesus Name Project maintains that its voter guides neither endorse nor oppose any candidate for office.

With the aim of "[taking] back Congress" and "[getting] out the church vote" the group states on its website: "If we simply tell the pastors without bias how Harry Reid's Senate voted to confirm the Anti-Jesus Judge David Hamilton, how will Christian people vote? If we simply report the non-partisan voting record of Nancy Pelosi's Congress, who voted to pay for abortions with our tax-dollars in Obamacare 'health' bill, how will Christian people vote?

"Pastors, we must not fear the government. It is time for the government to fear the Church of Jesus Christ."

The Pray in Jesus Name Project was started by Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt, an Air Force Academy graduate and former U.S. Navy chaplain who has stood for the rights of military chaplains to pray publicly in Jesus' name.

Nathan Black
Christian Post Reporter


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © 2010 Christianpost.com. All rights reserved.

YES!!!!!!!! ON A CALL FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION REQUIRED BY THE MONTANA CONSTITUTION

Constitutional Convention Call No. 2 (CC-2)
BALLOT LANGUAGE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION CALL NO. 2 (CC-2)

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION CALL NO. 2

A CALL FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION REQUIRED BY THE MONTANA CONSTITUTION

Article XIV, sections 3 and 4, of the Montana constitution requires the question of holding an unlimited constitutional convention to be submitted to the people at the general election in each 20th year following its last submission. If a majority of those voting on the question answer in the affirmative, the legislature shall provide for the calling thereof at its next session.

[ ] FOR calling a constitutional convention.

[ ] AGAINST calling a constitutional convention.


THE COMPLETE TEXT OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION CALL NO. 2 (CC-2)

Montana Constitution Article XIV

Section 3. Periodic submission. If the question of holding a convention is not otherwise submitted during any period of 20 years, it shall be submitted as provided by law at the general election in the twentieth year following the last submission.

Section 4. Call of convention. If a majority of those voting on the question answer in the affirmative, the legislature shall provide for the calling thereof at its next session. The number of delegates to the convention shall be the same as that of the larger body of the legislature. The qualifications of delegates shall be the same as the highest qualifications required for election to the legislature. The legislature shall determine whether the delegates may be nominated on a partisan or a non-partisan basis. They shall be elected at the same places and in the same districts as are the members of the legislative body determining the number of delegates.

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

The Capitalist Guidebook 014

"Looking for Hugh: The Capitalist Guidebook"

The Capitalist Guidebook 009

FBI Captured Muslim Brotherhood’s Strategic Plan

Posted by Team B Oct 26th 2010 at 2:23 pm

Part 14 of a serialization of Shariah – The Threat to America, the report of Team B II of the Center for Security Policy.

Here, we look at the contents of the secret Muslim Brotherhood strategic plan for North America, which the FBI uncovered in 2004. The plan explains how the Ikhwan seeks to extend shariah into the United States and Canada.

‘An Explanatory Memorandum’

The Muslim Brotherhood’s strategic plan for North America was a closely-held secret until the FBI discovered it during a 2004 raid of a house in Annandale, Virginia. Agents discovered a secret basement containing internal Ikhwan documents, including the strategic plan titled, “An Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group.”

The strategic plan was written by a member of the Board of Directors for the Muslim Brotherhood in North America and senior Hamas leader named Mohammed Akram, and was approved by the Brotherhood’s Shura Council and Organizational Conference in 1987.

The plan establishes the mission of the Muslim Brother in North America in this following passage:

“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ’sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

In other words, the Ikhwan’s strategy for destroying the United States is to get us, specifically our leadership, to do the bidding of the MB for them. The Muslim Brotherhood intends to conduct Civilization Jihad by co-opting our leadership into believing a counterfactual understanding of Islam and the nature of the Muslim Brotherhood, thereby coercing these leaders to enforce the MB narrative on their subordinates.

At the ground level, this means that when police officers, federal agents, military personnel, or any other Americans who have sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution challenge their leadership with facts, the latter is faced with a hard choice: admit a lack of understanding of the threat and that he or she has been duped, or the leader must suppress the facts and his subordinates in the interest of protecting his or her professional reputation.

Extensive anecdotal evidence obtained from law enforcement professionals, federal agents, and military service members suggests that there is considerable suppression of the facts about shariah and efforts by the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies to bring it to America. This behavior frequently impedes ongoing investigations and countervailing efforts.

For instance, police officers in a number of communities around the country have been pushed out of their Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) or counterterrorism positions by their chiefs or deputy chiefs for factually articulating that certain MB operatives working with their police leadership are, in fact, hostile to the United States and the police department in question. A similar phenomenon has also been evidenced within the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and other federal, as well as state and local, entities. That is what is meant by “‘sabotaging’ Western Civilization by ‘their hands.”’

The Muslim Brotherhood’s ‘Phased Plan’

We know from, among other things, the Elbarasse trove of MB documents, that the goal of destroying Western Civilization from within is to be achieved by the Brotherhood in accordance with a “phased plan.”

The plan is a stepped process modeled directly after Sayyid Qutb’s Milestones and the shariah doctrine of progressive revelation. One such document is an undated paper entitled, “Phases of the World Underground Movement Plan.” It specifies the five phases of the Muslim Brotherhood Movement in North America.

They are described, together with comments about the Ikhwan’s progress in realizing each goal as follows:

“Phase One: Phase of discreet and secret establishment of leadership.

“Phase Two: Phase of gradual appearance on the public scene and exercising and utilizing various public activities (It greatly succeeded in implementing this stage). It also succeeded in achieving a great deal of its important goals, such as infiltrating various sectors of the Government. Gaining religious institutions and embracing senior scholars. Gaining public support and sympathy. Establishing a shadow government (secret) within the Government.

“Phase Three: Escalation phase, prior to conflict and confrontation with the rulers, through utilizing mass media. Currently in progress.

“Phase Four: Open public confrontation with the Government through exercising the political pressure approach. It is aggressively implementing the above-mentioned approach. Training on the use of weapons domestically and overseas in anticipation of zero-hour. It has noticeable activities in this regard.

“Phase Five: Seizing power to establish their Islamic Nation under which all parties and Islamic groups are united.”

This document offers a chilling operational insight into the mindset, planning, and vision of the Islamic movement in North America.

The Implementation of Shariah by the Muslim Brotherhood

The Elbarasse archives and close observation of the Brotherhood’s operations reveal the following as the most important of the techniques employed by the Ikhwan in America to achieve the seditious goals of its civilization jihad:

• Expanding the Muslim presence by birth rate, immigration, and refusal to assimilate;

• Occupying and expanding domination of physical spaces;

• Ensuring the “Muslim Community” knows and follows MB doctrine;

• Controlling the language we use in describing the enemy;

• Ensuring we do not study their doctrine (shariah);

• Co-opting key leadership;

• Forcing compliance with shariah at local levels;

• Fighting all counterterrorism efforts;

• Subverting religious organizations;

• Employing lawfare – the offensive use of lawsuits and threats of lawsuits;

• Claiming victimization / demanding accommodations;

• Condemning “slander” against Islam;

• Subverting the U.S. education system, in particular, infiltrating and dominating U.S. Middle East studies programs;

• Demanding the right to practice shariah in segregated Muslim enclaves;

• Demanding recognition of shariah in non-Muslim spheres;

• Confronting and denouncing Western society, laws, and traditions; and

• Demanding that shariah replace Western law. Note that many of the foregoing techniques entail, in one way or another, influencing and neutralizing the American government at all levels.

The next section, Part 15, is a case study of Muslim Brotherhood penetration of the United States government.

On the Trail of the Muslim Brotherhood in America

Posted by Team B Oct 24th 2010 at 6:31 am

Part 13 of a serialization of Shariah – The Threat to America, the report of Team B II of the Center for Security Policy.

An extensive FBI investigation and federal prosecution resulted in convictions that shed light on the Muslim Brotherhood’s operations in the United States. In addition to the convictions of five defendants for terrorist funding-related activity, the Texas trial produced a Justice Department list of “un-indicted co-conspirators” with the Holy Land Foundation (HLF), a terrorist fundraising front for Hamas.

Many of those un-indicted co-conspirators are individuals and organizations who are prominent in Muslim advocacy today, and who have cast themselves as mainstream Muslims. Many are also identified as Muslim Brotherhood operatives.

This section of the Team B report on shariah describes the Holy Land Foundation trial.

Between July and September 2007, prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Dallas, Texas, along with attorneys from Main Justice (DOJ), working with FBI case agents and analysts from the FBI Dallas Field Office tried the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLFRD or simply HLF) and its senior leadership in U.S. Federal Court, Northern District of Texas.

At the time, HLF was the largest Muslim charity in North America, and funneled money and assistance to Hamas overseas in support of their terrorist operations. Hamas had been designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) by the U.S. government in 1995.

Uncontested evidence provides unprecedented insights

In the course of the HLF trial, scores of exhibits and testimony were introduced into evidence uncontested by the defense. Taken together, they provided unprecedented insights into the web of connections among a handful of alleged Hamas front groups that have operated on American soil throughout the 1990s to this day.

This network serves as a central node in the Muslim Brotherhood’s wider U.S. organizational infrastructure.

HLF was the largest Hamas front organization ever prosecuted by the U.S. government; its trial was the largest in the history of official efforts to counter terrorism financing in America.

On October 22, 2007, after 19 days of deliberation, a jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict on any of the charges against the defendants. U.S. District Judge Joe A. Fish declared a mistrial after a decision could not be reached.

In September 2008, the second Holy Land Foundation trial began. On November 24, 2008, after six weeks of testimony and seven days of deliberation, the jury convicted HLF and five of its leaders on charges of providing material support to Hamas. As the Department of Justice stated at the time:

The government presented evidence at trial that, as the U.S. began to scrutinize individuals and entities in the United States who were raising funds for terrorist groups in the mid-1990s, the HLF intentionally hid its financial support for Hamas behind the guise of charitable donations.

HLF and these five defendants provided approximately $12.4 million in support to Hamas and its goal of creating an Islamic Palestinian state by eliminating the State of Israel through violent jihad.

Commenting on the verdicts, Patrick Rowan, Assistant Attorney General for National Security, observed:

Today’s verdicts are important milestones in America’s efforts against financiers of terrorism. For many years, the Holy Land Foundation used the guise of charity to raise and funnel millions of dollars to the infrastructure of the Hamas terror organization. This prosecution demonstrates our resolve to ensure that humanitarian relief efforts are not used as a mechanism to disguise and enable support for terrorist groups.

The following sentences were handed down for the defendants:

•Shukri Abu Baker, 50, of Garland, Texas, was sentenced to a total of 65 years in prison. He was convicted of 10 counts of conspiracy to provide, and the provision of, material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization; 11 counts of conspiracy to provide, and the provision of, funds, goods and services to a Specially Designated Terrorist; 10 counts of conspiracy to commit, and the commission of, money laundering; one count of conspiracy to impede and impair the Internal Revenue Service (IRS); and one count of filing a false tax return.
•Mohammad El-Mezain, 55, of San Diego, California, was sentenced to the statutory maximum of 15 years in prison. He was convicted on one count of conspiracy to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization.
•Ghassan Elashi, 55, of Richardson, Texas, was sentenced to a total of 65 years in prison. He was convicted on the same counts as Abu Baker, and one additional count of filing a false tax return.
•Mufid Abdulqader, 49, of Richardson, Texas, was sentenced to a total of 20 years in prison. He was convicted on one count of conspiracy to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization, one count of conspiracy to provide goods, funds, and services to a specially designated terrorist, and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering.
•Abdulrahman Odeh, 49, of Patterson, New Jersey, was sentenced to 15 years in prison. He was convicted on the same counts as Abdulqader.
•HLF, now defunct, was convicted on 10 counts of conspiracy to provide, and the provision of, material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization; 11 counts of conspiracy to provide, and the provision of, funds, goods and services to a Specially Designated Terrorist; and 10 counts of conspiracy to commit,and the commission of, money laundering.
It should be emphasized that all these defendants were proven to be leaders of Hamas in the United States and, therefore, Muslim Brotherhood operatives.

Unfortunately, on April 1, 2010, Assistant Attorney General David Kris, who heads the Justice Department’s National Security Division, denied a request by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Dallas, Texas for further prosecutions in the HLF trial.

The prosecutions were to be aimed specifically at the Muslim Brotherhood fronts that were designated as unindicted co-conspirators. Despite the efforts of the USAO-Dallas and the FBI Dallas Office, the Department of Justice is not supporting any further action.

The question occurs: Is the reason for quashing such criminal prosecutions to avoid bringing to light potentially highly embarrassing evidence concerning the extent to which this and previous U.S. administrations have embraced and legitimated the very Ikhwan organizations that would be defendants in such cases? (The topic of troubling official conduct like this with respect to understanding and countering shariah and its adherents is discussed at length in Chapter nine of the Team B report.)

In addition, the North American Islamic Trust (and perhaps other unindicted co conspirators) have appealed the court’s ruling on their listing. According to press reports, a panel of the 5th Circuit held a closed-door hearing on the matter in 2010. As of this writing, neither the government’s position nor the judgment of the court of appeals is known.

In Part 14, Team B describes a secret Muslim Brotherhood strategy memorandum that the FBI discovered during a raid on a suspected terrorist house in suburban Virginia.

The Muslim Brotherhood in America

Posted by Team B Oct 9th 2010 at 10:17 am

Part 12 of a serialization of Shariah – The Threat to America, the report of Team B II of the Center for Security Policy.

The Muslim Brotherhood began its penetration of the United States in the 1950s. In 1953, Princeton University hosted a group of “prominent Muslims” for an “Islamic Colloquium.” Brotherhood delegates asked for and were granted a meeting with President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who agreed on the counsel of his defense and intelligence advisors, who saw it as an opportunity for the U.S. to influence the Muslim world and to use them against the Communists, who were on the ascendancy.

One of the delegates at the meeting was the “Honorable Saeed Ramahdan, Delegate of the Muslim Brothers,” as described in the official White House documents. A now-declassified CIA document recording the events of the meeting described Ramadan as follows: “Ramadan seems to be a Fascist, interested in the grouping of individuals for power. He did not display many ideas except for those of the Brotherhood.”

Setting down roots

As the Muslim Brothers “settled” in North America, they did so according to their stated bylaws. The MB’s bylaws, and specifically the approved “means” to achieve the Ikhwan’s objectives in America, include this mandate: “Make every effort for the establishment of educational, social, economic, and scientific institutions and the establishment of mosques, schools, clinics, shelters, clubs.”

Through these means, the Muslim Brotherhood would wage civilization jihad in North America. At the University of Illinois in Urbana, the Ikhwan created its first North American front organization, the Muslim Students Association (MSA), in 1963. Today, MSA chapters are present on many college campuses across the country, serving as recruiting nodes for the MB and, in some cases, for violent jihadist organizations.

As the Team B II report on shariah explains, out of the MSA came nearly every Muslim organization in America today.

Initially, as MSA chapters sprang up on American campuses, they presented Islam in public as a mainstream alternative to other religions, never mentioning extremist or revolutionary aspects. In recent years, MSA members have become ever-more aggressive in their demands for accommodations and silencing those who oppose them.

In the 1970s, the Brotherhood formed a number of trade organizations for the purpose of insinuating its members more deeply into American society. Those organizations included the Association of Muslim Social Scientists (AMSS), the Association of Muslim Scientists and Engineers (AMSE), the Islamic Medical Association (IMA), the Muslim Communities Association (MCA), and others. The Brothers also formed other student groups in the 1970s, including the Muslim Arab Youth Assembly (MAYA) and Muslim Youth of North America (MYNA).

In 1973, the Saudis created an important new enabler of Brotherhood operations in the United States and domination of American Muslim communities: the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT). NAIT “controls” approximately 80 percent of the titles/deeds to the mosques, Islamic organizations and Islamic schools in the United States, ensuring that the vast majority of Muslim facilities in this country are dominated by the most reactionary strains of Islam.

Typically, along with such ownership come Saudi-trained and appointed imams, textbooks for the madrassas, jihadist literature and videos for the bookstores, paid hajj pilgrimages (the obligatory trip to Mecca) and, in some cases, training for jihad.

According to NAIT’s website, NAIT promotes a lifestyle for Muslims to live in America “in a shariah-compliant way.” The site does not provide a street address for NAIT, but lists office phone numbers that have a Chicago area code.

In 1980, the Brotherhood created a new organization to extend the footprint made possible by the swelling ranks of Muslim Students Association alumni. It brought together most of its groups under the auspices of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), based in Indiana, which today is the largest Muslim Brotherhood front on the continent.

NAIT says on its website, “NAIT supports and provides services to ISNA, MSA, their affiliates, and other Islamic centers and institutions. The President of ISNA is an ex-officio member of the Board of Trustees of NAIT.”

The creation of ISNA ushered in an era of massive growth of the Muslim Brotherhood movement in North America. Through the 1980s and 1990s, the Ikhwan created hundreds of new organizations and built hundreds of mosques and Islamic schools across North America. It did so primarily with funding from Saudi Arabia.

Breaking the code

An alert Maryland Transportation Authority Police officer, on an August day in 2004, observed a woman wearing traditional Islamic garb videotaping the support structures of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, and conducted a traffic stop. The driver of the vehicle was identified as Ismail Elbarasse. Elbarasse was detained on an outstanding material witness warrant issued in a Chicago Hamas case.

The FBI’s Washington Field Office raided Elbarasse’s residence in Annandale, Virginia. In the basement of the suspect’s home, the FBI found a hidden sub-basement. In the sub-basement, agents discovered the archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America.

The documents confirmed what investigators and counterterrorism experts had previously suspected and contended about the myriad Muslim-American groups in the United States – namely, that nearly all of them are controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood and, therefore, as shariah dictates, are hostile to the United States, its Constitution and its freedoms. The documents make clear that the strategic objective of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America is to implement shariah law in the United States in furtherance of establishing a global caliphate.

In Part 13, Team B shows how the FBI blew apart the Muslim Brotherhood’s operations in the United States in the Holy Land Foundation terrorist financing trial of 2008.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s Westward Infiltration

The Muslim Brotherhood’s Westward Infiltration
Posted by Team B Oct 5th 2010 at 12:53 pm

Part 11 of a serialization of Shariah – The Threat to America, the report of Team B II of the Center for Security Policy. This is a continuation of Part 10, concerning the Muslim Brotherhood’s penetration of Europe, setting the stage for the organization’s infiltration of the United States.

After years of steady growth in Europe through the 1960s and ‘70s, the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1980s moved its European headquarters from Germany to the United Kingdom.

At that time, Mohammed Akef, who would become the MB’s Supreme Guide for several years until early 2010, served as the imam at a Munich mosque when he moved the Ikhwan’s European operations into the Markfield Conference Centre near Leicester, U.K.

The Markfield Conference Centre is owned by the Islamic Foundation, an affiliate of the Muslim Council of Britain – both Muslim Brotherhood front groups. The Centre now houses the Federation of Islamic Organisations in Europe (FIOE), led by an Iraqi named Ahmed al-Rawi. FIOE has become one of Europe’s largest MB organizations.

Yousef al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader, is heavily involved with this entire network. The FIOE has become the starting point for a number of other Muslim Brotherhood entities, including the Institute for the Study of Human Sciences and the European Council for Fatwa and Research. Al-Qaradawi heads the latter group.

In France, the Brotherhood has the Union of Islamic Organizations in France; the Italian counterpart is the Union of the Islamic Communities and Organizations in Italy. Those groups work, respectively, with the French and Italian governments in order to advance the Ikhwan’s agenda and subvert the respective host countries. They use claims of victimhood and demands for equality and tolerance to mask their true intentions and marginalize or silence critics.

In the U.K., the Muslim Council of Britain and the Muslim Association of Britain are two of the most prominent MB organizations. Like their continental counterparts, the MCB and MAB work with Her Majesty’s government at the highest levels toward the same end: subverting the British government and nation from within.

Muslim Brotherhood youth fronts

The late 1990s saw the MB launch the Forum for European Muslim Youth and Student Organizations (FEMYSO), which is headquartered in Brussels, Belgium. FEMYSO describes itself in its own literature as “a network of 42 national and international organizations bringing together youth from over 26 different countries,” and credibly claims to be the primary organization in Europe for Muslim youth.

This Muslim Brotherhood organization, like most of the Ikhwan’s other fronts, has significant influence and appears to have encountered little resistance from European security services. In short, Muslim Brotherhood organizations exist across Europe today.

Domination of Muslim groups across Europe

As we shall see with respect to the MB footprint in the United States, the leading Muslim organizations across North America – virtually without exception – are fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood.

Even though the affiliation with the Brotherhood for most of these organizations is easily established, and the true, seditious objectives of these organizations are readily discernable, most European governments are unwilling to face reality, let alone deal effectively with the threats posed by MB penetration of the highest levels of their societies.

Take, for example, the following cases in point. Two of the most prominent MB operatives in Europe, Ghaleb Himmat and Yousef Nada, were designated as terrorism financiers by the U.S. Department of the Treasury in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Treasury also deemed their bank, Al-Taqwa, as an entity that funds terrorism.

For his part, the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual leader, Yousef al-Qaradawi, was named in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation (HLF) terrorism financing trial as an unindicted co-conspirator for his involvement with the HLF Hamas fundraising front.

All three individuals – Himmat, Nada and al-Qaradawi – nonetheless have been allowed to continue doing business with, and in some cases, actually inside Europe.

One reason for Europe’s general unwillingness to confront and counter the danger posed by the Muslim Brotherhood and its operatives is that in the parliamentary politics of some countries, Muslim communities are increasingly seen as critical voting blocs.

The Ikhwan has been able to capitalize on such perceptions long before Muslims achieve majority status in the demographics of a number of European nations, by insinuating shariah into those countries.

Growing unease among Europeans about the success of the Islamicization of parts of the continent has begun translating into pushback. In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders’ party has garnered unprecedented support for its opposition to shariah. The question is, will the efforts amount to much and, if so, will they achieve results in time?

The next part of this BigPeace series, Part 12, covers the Muslim Brotherhood in America

The Movement of the Muslim Brotherhood into the West

Posted by Team B Oct 7th 2010 at 11:03 am

Part 10 of a serialization of Shariah – The Threat to America, the report of Team B II of the Center for Security Policy.

Before we look at the Muslim Brotherhood’s infiltration of the United States, we’ll study its penetration of the Western societies of Europe. Knowing how the extremist “civilization jihad” movement moved covertly into the European democracies provides insights in how it burrowed into America.

The Team B II report on shariah identifies five prominent members of the Muslim Brotherhood, known in Arabic as Ikhwan, during the early infiltration of Europe: Said Ramadan, Youssef Nada, Ghaleb Himmat, Mohamed Akef and Yousef al Qaradawi, the latter of whom today is known as the International Muslim Brotherhood’s “spiritual guide” and is considered a leading Islamic legal scholar. Each man played an important role in transforming the Ikhwan into the international Muslim mafia that it is today.

Of the five, Said Ramadan is particularly noteworthy.

Ramadan was Ikhwan founder Hassan al Banna’s assistant for years. He married al Banna’s daughter and became a driving force in the MB leadership after the Egyptian security forces killed al Banna in the 1950s. His son, Tariq Ramadan, is a member of the Ikhwan royalty and one of today’s most assiduous practitioners of stealth or civilization jihad.

The George W. Bush administration banned Tariq Ramadan from entering the United States in 2004. In January, 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton reversed the ban, allowing the younger Ramadan to use his renewed access to American audiences to advance the Ikhwan’s civilization jihad.

The Muslim Brotherhood in Post-World War II Europe

Postwar West Germany offered the MB a valuable safe haven in the heart of Europe, primarily because the Ikhwan had established a relationship with the Nazis during World War II and maintained ties to powerful Germans after the war. The West Germans were especially welcoming of Syrians and Egyptians because of a state policy that offered assistance to any “refugees” from nations that formally recognized Bonn’s rival, communist East Germany – something both Egypt and Syria did.

The Ikhwan leadership, which insinuate ditself into the societies of Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and other European countries, established numerous front organizations for the Brotherhood – a pattern the organization follows aggressively around the world and especially in the West to this day.

For example, Said Ramadan moved to Cologne, where he received a law degree, and founded the Islamic Society of Germany. He presided over the organization from 1958-1968.

Spreading across Europe and beyond

In 1962, Ramadan founded the Muslim World League in Saudi Arabia, a global Muslim Brotherhood front that would set up chapters in scores of countries worldwide.

Another of the five individuals, Ghaleb Himmat, was a Syrian who was a citizen of Italy. He directed the Islamic Society of Germany from 1973-2002. He established the Al-Taqwa Bank, which Italian intelligence dubbed “the bank of the Muslim Brotherhood.” Himmat ran Al-Taqwa and a group of front companies in Switzerland, Liechtenstein, and the Bahamas with yet another of the five, Youssef Nada.

Before it was shut down in 2002, Al-Taqwa Bank became known for its funding of: al Qaeda; the Brotherhood’s Palestinian arm, known as Hamas; Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini and his supporters; and other terrorist organizations.

In the 1960’s, these senior Muslim Brotherhood leaders planned and built a huge complex known as the Islamic Center of Munich which became an important staging point for the Muslim Brotherhood in Europe.

A new book by Ian Johnson entitled A Mosque in Munich describes the powerful force-multiplier this facility became for Ikhwan operations in Europe and beyond. It also reveals longstanding U.S. government ties to the Brothers, including Said Ramadan who contributed to the construction of this mosque.

In 1973, several dozen Muslim Brothers attended a meeting of the Islamic Cultural Centres and Bodies in Europe in London, England in order to organize the Muslim Brotherhood Movement in Europe. Ghaleb Himmat was present as the head of the Islamic Community of Southern Germany. While no agreement on strategy to develop a European Islamic network was reached, this meeting laid the foundation for such a plan.

Four years later, the senior Muslim Brotherhood leaders met in Lugano, Switzerland, near the homes of Ghaleb Himmat and Youssef Nada to discuss the strategy for moving the Brotherhood forward.

Yousef al-Qaradawi, another of the five, was among those present at this meeting. One of the first actions taken afterwards was the establishment of the MB front known as the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT). IIIT’s role was to maintain the ideological purity and consistency of the Brotherhood’s expanding operations.

During a subsequent meeting in Saudi Arabia in 1978, the Brotherhood decided to set up IIIT near Temple University in Philadelphia, an institution where leading Islamic thinker and Muslim Brother Ismail Faruqi was teaching at the time. Later, the IIIT moved its headquarters to Herndon, Virginia.

The next part of this BigPeace series, Part 11, continues with the Muslim Brotherhood’s infiltration of Western democratic societies.

The Genesis of the Muslim Brotherhood

Posted by Team B Sep 27th 2010 at 12:03 pm

Part 9 of a serialization of Shariah – The Threat to America, the report of Team B II of the Center for Security Policy.

The aftermath of World War I, with the defeat of the Turkish Ottoman Empire, saw the destruction of the Islamic political authority called the “caliphate.” Mustapha Kemal Ataturk established post-Ottoman Turkey as a secular westernized state and abolished the caliphate. Among his reforms to dismantle the shariah system, Ataturk banned the tradition of growing beards by men and wearing headscarves by women, banned the call to prayer from the mosques, abolished the Turkish language’s script and replaced it with the Latin alphabet, and made the Turkish military the custodians of a new secular tradition.

This did not sit well with Islamic traditionalists. Some became determined to restore the caliphate, if not in Turkey, then somewhere else. One such individual was Hassan al Banna, the son of a Muslim imam who lived outside Cairo, Egypt. In 1928, al Banna founded an organization called the al-Ikhwan al-Musilmin, known in English as the Society of Muslim Brothers or the Muslim Brotherhood (MB).

The purpose of the MB or Ikhwan was to unify the predominantly Islamic countries under a new caliphate and subordinating all lands to the rule of a single caliph, under shariah law.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s bylaws make clear the organization’s objectives and how it intends to achieve them:

“The Muslim Brotherhood is an International Muslim body which seeks to establish Allah’s law in the land by achieving the spiritual goals of Islam and the true religion which are namely the following: . . . (F) the need to work on establishing the Islamic State; [and] (G) The sincere support for a global cooperation in accordance with the provisions of the Islamic Sharia.”

Chapter II, Article 3 of the MB’s bylaws states:

“The Muslim Brotherhood in achieving these objectives depends on the following means: . . . (D) Make every effort for the establishment of educational, social, economic, and scientific institutions and the establishment of mosques, schools, clinics, shelters, clubs, as well as the formation of committees to regulate zakat affairs and alms; (E) The Islamic nation must be fully prepared to fight the tyrants and the enemies of Allah as a prelude to establishing the Islamic state.”

By the early 1930s, the Brotherhood had developed a formal organizational structure around groups of men with special spiritual and physical training called “Battalions.” By 1940, the MB created the “secret apparatus” which was the Ikhwan’s military wing, abandoning the Battalions in 1943. The Ikhwan developed a relationship with the Nazis during the war. The MB’s military wing continues to operate today and is called the “Special Chapter.” The Special Chapter’s operations are known as “special work,” meaning military fighting or covert operations.

During World War II and the years that followed, the MB became increasingly aggressive and violent. It called for the removal of all British forces (“non-Muslim Forces”) from Egypt (“Muslim Lands”) as required by shariah or Islamic law.

During the late 1940s, the MB targeted Egyptian officials (including Muslims), British soldiers and their families, and in December 1948, a Muslim Brother assassinated Egyptian Prime Minister Mahmud Fahmi al-Nuqrashi. In February 1949, Egyptian security forces killed MB founder Hassan al Banna in Cairo.

The period following the assassination of al Banna was marked with significant MB violence against the Egyptian monarchy and the British. After a ban on MB activities was lifted in 1951, the Ikhwan coordinated actively with Gamal Abdel Nasser and the young officers who overthrew King Farouk in 1952. As soon as the Ikhwan felt powerful enough to confront the government on its own, however, it turned against the new President Nasser.

Nasser, in turn, launched a crackdown against the MB in 1954 that accelerated an exodus of many top Brothers and the expansion of the organization around the world, including into the West.

The Team B report lists prominent Ikhwan members during this transitional period who played vital roles in transforming the MB into the international Muslim mafia it is today. One of those figures was Said Ramadan, who was al Banna’s assistant for years and married his daughter. The history of their penetration of Western societies in Europe is instructive for those seeking to understand how and the extent to which similar influence operations are being run against the United States.

Said Ramadan’s son and al Banna’s grandson Tariq Ramadan is a member of the MB leadership and one of the most skillful practitioners of the stealth jihad. In January 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton reversed a six-year ban on his entry into the United States. Tariq Ramadan has used his renewed access to American audiences to advance the Brotherhood’s civilization jihad.

This serialization of the Team B report will continue, with Part 10 discussing the movement of the Muslim Brotherhood into the West.