Wednesday, October 18, 2017

Muslim Brotherhood Deepens Its Ties on Capitol Hill

Muslim Brotherhood Deepens Its Ties on Capitol Hill

A helicopter view of the U.S. Capitol building on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC.
A helicopter view of the U.S. Capitol building on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. (Photo: BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / AFP / Getty Images)
New evidence suggests the Muslim Brotherhood has big plans for the U.S. and a variety of countries around the globe that involve hundreds of millions of dollars in a bid to gain political influence.
The exact details come from a mole inside a meeting of Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Istanbul, Turkey, and made public in Arabic by the Egyptian news outlet 7th Day.
The gathering took place at the city’s Akgun Hotel with members of the Brotherhood’s U.S.-based revolutionary council among the 21 in attendance.

United States

Much of the conversation focused on attempts to curry favor in Congress.
They reportedly met North Carolina Democrat Congressman David Price – notable for his early condemnation of the 2003 war in Iraq, Californian Congressman Alan Lowenthal and centrist New York Republican John Faso.
The Istanbul meeting was told how Brotherhood officials heard from Price and Lowenthal that they would try to reduce U.S. aid to Egypt by 40 percent by the end of 2017. The Brotherhood is deeply opposed to the current pro-American regime in Cairo.
The organization held rallies in New York’s Times Square and with CAIR and other Islamist organizations in Illinois and Boston.
Among those said to have attended a Brotherhood-backed event was former Barack Obama adviser Dalia Mogahed.

Help Clarion Project educate Congress on the Muslim Brotherhood.


Alongside Turkey, Qatar appears to be the main backer of the Brotherhood – to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.
Doha has funneled $100 million to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt since 2014, 7th Day reported. The money was to be used for political and media campaigns as well as supporting the families of Brotherhood members serving time in Egyptian jails. The meeting heard how some 200,000 bank accounts were used in order to transfer the funds. Clarion recently reported on the Muslim Brotherhood’s huge international piggy bank.

Educational Influence

The brotherhood set up its own international university in 2016 with branches in the UK, Canada, Malaysia, Sudan and Thailand. This allows the MB’s disciples from Egypt to legally enter other countries.
The college quickly established partnerships with local universities in several countries. Its degrees are recognized in states including the UK.
Staff recruitment is also an opportunity to bolster the ranks of the wider organization.
The brotherhood also created the UK- and Irish-based Doctors for Freedom to lobby for the release of members currently in Egyptian jails.

Meeting Lawmakers and Diplomats

From 2016-17, Brotherhood officials met politicians and diplomats from dozens of countries. Among them:
  1. Staff at the embassies of 80 nations in Ankara, Turkey
  2. 132 diplomatic delegations at the UN including all Security Council states other than Egypt
  3. Officials and/or lawmakers in the UK, Canada, Ireland and Switzerland
  4. (Through a letter) heads of state of 50 countries along with senior politicians in the U.S. and EU


The organization staged protests in Geneva, Zurich Berlin, Calgary, Montreal and Toronto. In the UK, a professor at Leeds University organized a demonstration in front a London museum.

November 11

The Muslim Brotherhood is considering staging protests on November 11 across Egypt in opposition to the el-Sisi government. If the events go ahead, they will target blue- and white-collar workers and the youth. The organization wants to amass one-million Facebook followers as part of its campaign.
A group of overseas businessmen donated $5 million for the November 11 event.

Help Clarion Project educate Congress on the Muslim Brotherhood.


Ran Meir
Ran Meir is Clarion Project's Arab affairs analyst.

BANNING Mosques Will Strangle Islam’s (Western) Choke-hold: Step-By Step. Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

BANNING Mosques Will Strangle Islam’s (Western) Choke-hold: Step-By Step. Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

Image result for pics of switzerland ban on mosques
AT the onset, it is imperative to identify bugaboos within hot-button issues. Assuredly, little more qualifies than the “religion of peace.” Besides, failure to do so affords the jihadi enemy open sesame. This is the case, be it through one or another shuck and jive show or through frontal jihad. Regardless, the deadly truth is either obfuscated or a done deal.


RESULTANT, when basic freedoms are at stake, elephants in the room must be targeted. No doubt, freedom of religion (alongside freedom of speech and expression) qualifies as key and core.

IN this regard, the first order of business is to shout from the rooftops: Islam has long ceased to be a religion, per se, therefore, it is not entitled to western protection!! Rather, it is a political/ideological weapon utilized as a spearhead into the west – the end goal being the resurrection of the next Caliphate. Effectively, there is no separation between so-called “moderate” Islam and radical Islam – it is one and the same, despite all the apologias and verbal diarrhea to the contrary.

AS such, the following evidentiary trail (among enumerable found at this site, with re-blogs circling the web like a house on fire) must be used as supportive evidence, thereby, leading to the only rational conclusion: BANNING mosques will save the west from Islam; that which is supposedly dictated by Allah, as “revealed” by their madman “prophet”, Muhammad! Period.
 AS reported on November 28, 2015 via the excerpts below:


And if anyone knows the inside score, look no further than to a premier counter terrorism investigator and personal contact alike; one who has the complete inside track on what awaits America ala Islam’s frontal spears: “Dave Gaubatz Warned (Jan. 2014): Mosques, Religiously Garbed Jihadi Indoctrination Camps!” 
Moving right along, in April 2014, this site concluded: “American Mosques Are Priming For Jihadi Training!”
More pointedly, the Islamic Society of America (ISNA) is up to their necks in beheading, and they are the major umbrella which houses America’s mosques. Wow.

Oh dear…certain mosques are hotter than hot, and that’s why the subject is repeated ad nauseam: Detroit, Dearborne and Nashville are in the forefront of the assault charge!”
And so on and so forth…

In fact, it has already been proven that ISIS is very deeply embedded in America. So, let’s not waste precious time debating this point. Therefore, it stands to reason that their barracks within, the mosques, are priming to attack. A + B…continue reading


To further illuminate the difficult subjects we are discussing, we asked Israeli journalist Adina Kutnicki and American investigator and security specialist David Gaubatz to weigh in on the threat from ISIS and the expanding Islamist army.

Adina is an expert on the Muslim Brotherhood and her previous interview about the expansionist ideology of the organization sent shock waves across the internet. Adina is an editor of several websites that examine the growing violence in the name of Islam, and she is the creator of a popular Israeli blog. Her insights into the conflict between Israel and the Islamic terrorists of Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority will give our readers an opportunity to find out the truth about the Middle East without the Israel bashing propaganda of the mainstream media.
David Gaubatz is the author of a book about the Council on American–Islamic Relations and the Islamic infiltration of America, Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America. Gaubatz is a U.S. State Department-trained Arabic linguist and a retired Federal Agent with the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI). With over three decades of combined experience, his career has led him on missions spanning the Middle East — from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Kuwait to Iraq. As a Special Federal Agent, he has received the highest forms of U.S. security clearances for top-secret intelligence information — including for weapons of mass destruction and espionage — and has been briefed into many black projects.
Wolff Bachner: You are the inspiration and brains behind a rather important program called The Mapping Shariah Project.

What exactly is The Mapping Shariah Project?

What have you uncovered about Islamic extremism being promoted in American Mosques, and what materials have you collected to document this unlawful, dangerous activity?

David Gaubatz: In 2007 – 2008, I was hired to be the Director of the Mapping Shariah Project (MSP). The project was funded by the Center for Security Policy and David Yerushalmi (attorney) handled the legal issues. We had PHD level professionals in Israel (Professor Mordechai Kedar) to analyze the data.

The essence of the research was for me to send teams to a couple hundred mosques throughout America and observe the Shariah adherence by the Islamic leaders and the Muslim worshippers. The theory was the more adherence to all aspects of Shariah law, the more likelihood the danger of violence (Physical Jihad). This was proved in the research.

We discovered over 75% of the 2300 mosques in America had violent Islamic material within the mosque. Most of the material was from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

For more detailed information on the MSP you can review the complete analysis 
at: ….continue reading

ALAS, as we head into November 2017 (three years since the above blockbuster interview at Inquisitr was given) the situation in America (throughout the west at large) has gone from one level of red hot to the highest decibel alarm. Ignore these warnings at your own peril.

Image result for pics of switzerland ban on mosques
SO, once the truth sinks in, mandatory dismantling of Islam’s barracks will become crystal clear – the leadership’s objections be damned. If necessary, brick by brick. Concomitantly, it will be obligatory for all patriots within the U.S. and Israel (the twin pillars of western civilization) to follow the 2009 “Swiss (minaret) template”, but on steroids! We will get to that.
MIND you, there is no “love lost” at this end for Switzerland; a so-called “neutral” nation during the horrors of the Holocaust, but let’s not digress. After all, even a broken (Swiss) clock can get it right once in a while!

First Switzerland banned (in 2009) the addition of sky-high minarets and their loud speakers on mosques, then they banned burqas and face-covering veils in public places. Now (Oct. 2017) Swiss legislators are planning to ban Arabic from being spoken by imams in mosques and will prohibit any foreign funding for new construction or renovation of mosques. Swiss policies and limited Muslim immigration are one of the reasons there have been no Islamic terrorist attacks there. Yet.

ALL of which leads from there to here…..
Image result for pics of the mosques are our domes
TO wit, kudos are extended to Swedish patriots and their leaders for taking front-line steps to curb the Islamic menace – protecting their culture from Muslim supremacists and an eventual onslaught. For starters, in 2009, they banned minarets. Thereafter, they silenced their calls to jihad over mosque loudspeakers. Next up, in 2014, they outlawed burqas. Most recently, they limited Muslim immigration, and imposed a legislative ban re funding and renovation of new mosques. Still yet, there is much more which must be done.
ALAS, wouldn’t it be rational for America – as the foremost nation of the free world – to lead the way, thus, freeing the west from Islam’s death-grip?
CONSEQUENTLY, shuttering all mosques becomes a national imperative. Naturally, de-funding all those in the planning stages will follow.    
STILL yet, if patriots prefer to start with their Islamic garb….burqas…head-bags….as opposed to their barracks – peer within
  • Burqas Are a Threat to The Safety of All-Americans

  • Burqas Can Perpetuate Body Dysmorphia

  • Burqas Suggest Sexual Immodesty

  • Burqas Make People Feel Uncomfortable

  • They Symbolize Oppression

  • Burqas Lead to Withdrawal from Community and Entry into Radical Groups

  • Burqas Hide a Woman’s True Identity

  • The Burqa Promotes Segregation and Discrimination

  • Burqas Hide Abuse

INDEED, the above is just the tip.
Image result for pics of burqas
IN furtherance to the imperatives at hand, the overriding question becomes: What exactly has Switzerland’s “pro-active template” done to protect its non-Islamic citizens? Well, while there has been an uptick in threats against Switzerland over the past few years, the fact remains that “death by jihad” has been slim to none since Feb. 21, 1970 – when the PFLP, the Marxist arm of Palestinian terror, executed the bombing of Swissair flight 330!
MOST significantly, by acting as a normal and rational country (responding to public demands and seeing from there to here), Sweden’s prior tactics have led to tightened up anti-terrorism laws in 2016 – that which enable leaders to strip convicted terrorists of their citizenship, as well as others who return home from jihadi hotbeds. Imagine that.
CONCRETELY, unlike in America where mega mosques are imposed upon non-Muslim populations and radical imams preach jihad within, at least the Swiss have the requisite common sense to shutter radical doors!
NOW, does anyone really believe that without HEAVY pressure from its non-Muslim population that Sweden’s leadership would have enacted its toughened anti-Islamic actions? Not only that, what about the jihadi-infested An’Nur mosque in Winterthur and its shuttering? How coincidental is it that it is currently “out of business” during this very same anti-Islamic thrust? Do pigs fly?
DEMONSTRABLY, for a highly placid-like nation, the Swiss are running circles around American patriots in the arena of self-survival – and that’s a real crying shame! An embarrassment to boot.
Image result for pics of there is no democracy only islam
CONCLUSIVELY, it has been proven six ways to Sunday: whenever basic freedoms are granted to followers of Islam, the rate of blow back via jihad – frontal or stealth aka civilizational – increases exponentially. This is the case because countless westerners fail to internalize an inherent truth: there is NO concept of democracy in Islam, and anything smacking of it is deemed forbidden – haram …. حَرَام‎‎ . That is that. Yes, Sharia Law is above Constitutional Law, and their differences are irreconcilable. Deadly so.
OMINOUSLY, an overwhelming majority of Muslims in America (especially, those who attend this or that mosque) are similarly inclined – disquieting as it is. The point being, if the Muslim population ever gains the upper hand, rest assured,  Sharia Law will become the law of the land. Guaranteed. 
SO, it is along the very same trajectory that this jihadi expert implores patriots to examine the aforementioned – which happens to be cited above. Besides, it makes no sense to look a gift toss in the mouth, so to speak. After all, it is this site’s gift to fellow patriots – free of charge! 
INCONTESTABLY, step-by-step, SHUTTERING MOSQUES will lead to the ultimate safety valve for the west – BANNING THE CULT OF ISLAM!!
Image result for pics of switzerland ban on mosques
{re-blogged at ConservativeFiringLine}
{re-blogged at}
{MEMO: FB’s censors are limiting the sharing of Adina Kutnicki: A Zionist & Conservative Blog! Indeed, the following message from FB’s censors is crystal clear:

Will ISIS Survive the Loss of the Caliphate?

Will ISIS Survive the Loss of the Caliphate?

An ISIS fighter
An ISIS fighter (Photo: Video screenshot)
The Arabic word baqiya (“remaining”) is one of the most common adjectives associated with the Islamic State (aka ISIS), dating back to its earliest incarnation that claimed to be a state: namely, the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI). Once ISI officially expanded into Syria under the name of the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) and began seriously controlling and administering territory, the additional claim of “expanding” was soon tagged on to the organisation’s unofficial slogan, thus baqiya wa tatamaddad. Indeed, with the capture of Mosul and other major towns and cities in Iraq and Syria, the claim to be remaining and expanding was not without merit, especially following the declaration of the Caliphate and spread of the Islamic State franchise into multiple other countries throughout the region.
Today, we no longer speak of the Islamic State as expanding, but rather debate whether it will survive as it comes under increasing pressure on the main fronts in Iraq and Syria but also abroad: thus, in Libya, which was often assumed to be the “fallback” option for the Islamic State, the organisation’s affiliates no longer control any towns in the country.
Given that the Islamic State is now contracting, will any of it ultimately remain? Some of the Islamic State’s messaging has been devoted to this very topic, and predictably argues against the idea that loss of territory means the end of the Caliphate project.
For example, in Tel Afar in northern Iraq, an Islamic State publication entitled “Caliphate will not vanish” was distributed as the Coalition campaign to retake Mosul began. The work argues that “many have forgotten that the Islamic State is not a state of land and geographic spaces, but rather the goal from it is to spread true Islam and restore jihad to the Ummah [global Muslim community] after decades of humiliation and degradation”.
The piece goes on to quote a familiar line from the last recorded speech by Islamic State spokesman Abu Muhammad al-Adnani in May 2016, in which he drew attention to the precedent of ISI’s losses and the retreat into the “desert” in the 2007-2009 period. “Defeat,” argued Adnani, “is the loss of the will and desire to fight. You will be victorious, America, and the mujahideen will be defeated only if you can remove the Qur’an from the hearts of the mujahideen.”
This messaging contrasts strongly with the recruitment drives and propaganda from the peak of the Islamic State’s power in 2014-2015, where the statehood model was proudly displayed and foreigners were urged to migrate to this supposed state and help build it. Now, however, entry for would-be foreign recruits into the Islamic State core in Iraq and Syria is practically much more difficult, especially as the Islamic State no longer controls territory on the border with Turkey.
Besides, the Islamic State’s territorial losses and the undermining of its administrative systems damage the organisation’s credibility as a state project, which was supposed to be its key advantage over rival jihadi groups. One thing we can therefore be sure of is that the streaming of thousands of foreign recruits into the Islamic State’s ranks is over.
Nonetheless, presumptions that the Islamic State will vanish with territorial defeat are naïve. While Adnani’s reference to the desert may seem vague, there are certainly large desert spaces in the border areas between Iraq and Syria (e.g. the Anbar-Deir az-Zor areas) where the Islamic State’s remaining core leadership can operate and manoeuvre even if it loses all towns under its control. Prospects of the Coalition or others clearing out and securing these vast spaces remain very remote, and they thus constitute the true “fallback” for the Islamic State.
As far as the nature of operations is concerned, we already have models for what “post-Islamic State” looks like, which suggests the organisation will not die with loss of territory. In Iraq’s eastern province of Diyala, for instance, the Islamic State has not controlled any towns for more than two years, yet there are constant reports of sleeper cells and security incidents like IED attacks, car bombings and attacks on security positions, with some areas having to be cleared out multiple times. In this case, there is no doubt that the Islamic State partly plays on sectarian fault lines in the province, undermining the Iranian-backed Badr-led security order.
Beyond Diyala, reports are emerging of the “return” of the Islamic State to areas where the organisation had lost territorial control such as Tikrit. Many of the problems here stem from general plagues in Iraq’s present-day order that transcend sectarian boundaries, such as poor management of security checkpoints that allow would-be Islamic State bombers to pass through as well as widespread corruption, which might, for instance, allow real Islamic State operatives to escape from detention through bribing the local security forces. Though the Islamic State has recruited people from all over the world, personnel records recovered in Iraq show the organisation within that country remains thoroughly local in its manpower base, allowing personnel to blend into the population.
Likewise, in Syria, the Islamic State has demonstrated a capacity to conduct operations deep inside the territories of its enemies, whether in the Syrian coastal regions controlled by the Assad regime, Turkish-backed rebel-held areas in north Aleppo countryside, and Kurdish-held territories spanning much of the northeast of the country (with the latter two areas constituting places from which the Islamic State lost territory). Many of the reasons for the persistence of these operations overlap with the problems in Iraq: sectarian and ethnic tensions, vast manoeuvring space, control of territories for extended periods of time that allowed for recruitment from local populations, proliferation of militia factions and the like.
In sum, there is little to suggest the Islamic State will completely die out with territorial loss. In Iraq and parts of eastern Syria in particular, the Islamic State remains the only real expression of Sunni insurgency, having destroyed its rivals nearly three years ago. It is hard to see those rivals reviving themselves and filling the Islamic State’s place.
Not only will the Islamic State remain in Iraq and Syria, it is also likely to persist as an international franchise even with loss of core territory. In several parts of the world, such as southeast Asia, the Islamic State has already moved beyond the insistence on territorial control and statehood, dropping the notion of claiming new “provinces”. In short, the Islamic State is indeed baqiya.

Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi is a research fellow at Middle East Forum’s Jihad Intel project.

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

"The west is Tired of islam" Douglas Murray DESTROYS Islam with Mark Steyn

You're a disgraceful loud mouth" Pamela Geller DESTROY Muslim Student that Confronts her

EPIC!! Pamela Geller DESTROY Linda Sarsour in HEATED Argument

"He's a FAILURE & A DISASTER " Pamela Geller DESTROYS Trudeau over Islamization of Canada

Trump's Critics on Iran Are Wrong

 Trump's Critics on Iran Are Wrong

by Gregg Roman
The Hill
October 16, 2017
Be the first of your friends to like this.

The cover of this week's New Yorker. Illustration by Tom Bachtell.
On Friday, President Trump announced he will not certify Iran's compliance with the nuclear deal signed by his predecessor. I'm sure most of us spent the weekend inundated with thought pieces declaring this a major misstep or some kind of politically motivated gambit that plays fast and loose with global security. But they're all wrong. With this bold action, we're finally on the path toward a safer Middle East.
Iran remains an immense threat to the United States and our allies, and decertification is a serious first step towards mitigating the harm Tehran is causing around the globe. Today's less covered announcement by the Treasury Department that it would apply further sanctions to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is an important second step.
Both of these actions must be viewed through a lens that's wider than the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action itself. They're not about the Iran deal, they're about U.S. policy toward Iran. Viewing the JCPOA as an island unto itself was one of President Obama's key mistakes. Fixing that mistake will make us all safer.
First, it's important to understand exactly what President Trump announced. When President Obama entered into the agreement, he didn't seek approval from the Senate, which has the constitutional obligation to ratify all international treaties, because the deal was extremely unpopular. Instead, Congress reached a compromise and passed a bill called the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, requiring the administration to certify every 90 days that the JCPOA is advancing our national security interests.
Iran remains an immense threat to the United States and its allies.
Decertifying the JCPOA doesn't end it. It doesn't mean that the United States is pulling out of the agreement either. But it does provide an opportunity for Congress to reevaluate whether the deal is advancing our national security interests.
The answer to that question is easy to determine. We know for a fact that Iran is preventing international inspectors from doing their jobs at military sites. We know for a fact that Tehran's work on ballistic missiles continues unabated. We know that the deal's sunset clauses will allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon with international support if they just wait a few more years, too.
Given these problems, it's actually difficult to argue with a straight face that the deal improves our national security. That's before we even contemplate Iran's ongoing harassment of our military personnel or their support for international instability in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Yemen, let alone Tehran's longstanding and expanding patronage of terrorism and violent extremism.
After the deal is decertified, Congress and the Trump administration can bring Iran back to the negotiating table to regain some of the leverage President Obama carelessly flushed away. Without leaving the deal, we can seek concessions from Iran that should have been in there from the start. We can establish some red lines on Iran's behavior, and put in place plans to actually enforce them. The Revolutionary Guard Corps sanctions are a great first step.

At best, the JCPOA pauses Iran's development of nuclear weapons temporarily.
Next, we'll have to deal with support for Hezbollah, Iran's most violent and powerful proxy. Beyond that, the United States must work with our allies to contain Iran's regional influence, sharing intelligence, enhancing cooperation and even arming nations, such as our Sunni Arab allies, that share our interest in keeping Tehran in check.
President Trump's critics, including those who shamelessly lied to the American public to sell this deal, will cry foul. Just like they did when ramming this bad agreement down our throats, they'll say that decertification leads to war. It's powerful rhetoric, but fortunately it's not much more than that.
Iran received the bulk of the sanctions relief at the outset of the deal, another key weakness, but Tehran still needs the economic benefits the deal provides, and they especially need the certainty and stability that would come with a stronger agreement, as many international businesses have remained reluctant to do business in Iran. So, despite the rhetoric, Tehran has too much to lose to seriously consider backing out of the agreement.
Money flowing into Iran must be contingent upon improvements in its behavior.
Yes, nuclear weapons are unique in their destructive capability and we must keep them out of Iran's hands. But dealing with the threat Iran poses has always required more than just delaying its nuclear weapons programs. It's a heavy lift, but securing a safer future for America and the entire Middle East is always a difficult task.
If Congress and the Trump administration can work together to ensure that the money flowing into Iran is contingent upon improvements in its behavior, with respect to the nuclear program and other fronts, we'll all be better off.
Gregg Roman is director of the Middle East Forum.
Gregg Roman  |  US policy, Iran  Related Topics: