Progressives want government out of the bedroom, and into your entire house, your head, your shower, your Internet, your thermostat, your refrigerator, your kids, your speech, your rights, your car, your schools, your office, your expression, your soul, your very essence, your wallet – and your bedroom.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Spoiled Children
- Great Lakes Storm Of November 11, 1835
- Harris To Win Iowa
- Angry Democrats
- November 9, 1913 Storm
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
- Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
Recent Comments
- czechlist on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Disillusioned on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- arn on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- conrad ziefle on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- arn on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Billyjack on COP29 Preview
- dm on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- dm on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Tel on COP29 Preview
- Robertvd on Making Themselves Irrelevant
What do Progressives want?
More.
All, including your life if they don’t like your politics.
More money out of our pockets to support dubious schemes that have already been soundly rejected in the market place. They know what is best for us, even if the consumer doesn’t.
Gosh… well put… how TRUE….
Progressive Policies infect every aspect of our lives… for the better good of course..
They go beyond that and steal your accumulated wealth once your in your grave.
It’s for your own good.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may
be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than
under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes
sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for
our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of
their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same
time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with
intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which
we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet
reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants,
imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
-CS Lewis
Lucky me!
Perhaps their intentions are good, as were the intentions of those who decided to save the world from nuclear annihilation in 1945 by uniting nations and taking totalitarian control of society worldwide.
My pappy said to me once, “Son, the highway to Hell is paved with good intentions.”
Disillusioned : your pappy was right – although, most AGW Leaders don’t even have good intentions ; they get the short cut to Hell !
Progressives…. a good watch…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu8bmMrfMYw
That is awesome. I sent it to my son in college. He should know the rules of engagement.
It is a very well stated video on what Progressives are and do, and I too sent it out to the posse.
Been watching that guys online commentaries for years. He is spot on most of the time and in my book one of the most eloquent and humorous commentators on the web.
Progressives simply want more money ;; without a good reason or just cause…
Progressives want……
Progressives never give anything.
Those are the people that do it in front of you on the beach so everyone can see how much they love each other. But not at home in their bedroom. The are Progressive on the outside but empty inside.
(They are)
In other words , Slavery and the silly thing is they want it for themselves too.
‘Landmark case brought by 886 Dutch citizens aims for more robust policy to cut emissions within targets set by IPCC to help avoid critical 2C rise in global temperatures’
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/14/dutch-government-facing-legal-action-over-failure-to-reduce-carbon-emissions
Marx and Engels referred to themselves as progressives. Early American progressives included Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Margaret Sanger. When their name fell out of favor in the 1920s they started calling themselves liberals. Then, once again, when the term liberal fell out of favor relatively recently, they returned to calling themselves progressives. It is hilarious how many young people who adhere to this name have no idea of its history. I call progressives “communists in waiting.”
So more or less all politicians whatever their political color.
No. Not more. Less.
Except for my very early years—and because of them—I haven’t been often disappointed by politicians in my life. I don’t invest enough of my trust to be disappointed but as bad as our “political class” had became I also don’t believe everyone is rotten.
I don’t enjoy politics but I don’t abhor it as some people say they do. It’s often dirty and disgusting but it beats war as a way to settle our differences. The hard part starts when men use politics to intrude on our fundamental liberties and it is human nature that many try. Our Founders chose war when politics failed them but they didn’t do it lightheartedly. They all were, by definition, politicians.
There are people entering politics today who are motivated by their opposition to Progressivism. It is our vested interest that they succeed. The alternative is war.
“It’s often dirty and disgusting but it beats war as a way to settle our differences. The hard part starts when men use politics to intrude on our fundamental liberties and it is human nature that many try. ”
As a matter of point……if the intrusion of your fundamental liberties was as the result of an attempt to prevent a war, would that be okay, or not ?
I’d like to answer it but I don’t understand your hypothetical. What’s on your mind, Chris?
“As a matter of point……if the intrusion of your fundamental liberties was as the result of an attempt to prevent a war, would that be okay, or not ?”
That is a complex matter having as much to do with trust in the authorities and the perceived threat as with the specific freedom being infringed. And during the course of US history when such things happen it is sometimes more controversial later than it was at the time that it happened. ie: internment of Japanese Americans during WW II. As student of the Civil War I believe that Lincolns suspension of Habeas Corpus also falls into the category since it was primarily the Copper Heads and Confederate sympathizers which objected to it at the time and because Lincoln was re-elected after the fact.
The current administration is not trusted by a large portion of the population right now. The best evidence one needs to prove demonstrate that statement as fact is to look at the boom in firearms sales in the country since Obama came into office.
US civil liberties were also assaulted extensively under Woodrow Wilson during WW I. A fact that many, even some students of US history, seem to not be aware of. Under the sedition acts of the United States and the various states 1,000s of people served long prison sentences for writing or saying things that were objections to the war or the draft or arguments against the treatment of German Americans at the time.
rah, I understand your take on the subject but I suspect Chris may have something else on his mind. He asked about the “intrusion of liberties … to prevent a war“.
I’d like him to be more specific. Like you say, it’s complex and broad.
Chris if we thought that way there never would have been and American Revolution.
Many or most of you misunderstand Chris’ point. It is that there are things so fundamental that war may be necessary. Attempts to prevent a war by destroying basic liberty and liberties are a) invalid and b) too high a price. JP Jones’ “Liberty or Death” is an expression of this.
Brian:
Now that I have a moment:
I agree with your take on liberty vs. war; it is in fact the point behind my reply above to Robert.
Chris didn’t express his point of view; he asked a question. Your interpretation may be right but I have no way of knowing. I assume he has some underlying position but having a lot of experience with European attitudes about liberties vs. government vs. war, I wanted him to be more precise in his inquiry. The devil may be behind our principles but he’s always in the details.
I’ve lived in Europe a long time. I follow European events and I have old friends there with whom I’ve kept contacts over many decades. Good people—freedom loving, thinking, educated (some of them even classically). In spite of that, I can recount many conversations when they advocated for the existence of the oppressive and highly undemocratic European Union. They were well aware of the bad designs and conduct of its institutions and officials, but there was always one overriding consideration:
The trampling of fundamental liberties was secondary to their belief that the EU will prevent wars among its members.
The fear of some educated Europeans about another war is so deep it leads to irrational conclusions, in my opinion. It subverts Santayana’s counsel that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Their reaction to the history of Europe’s wars will lead to wars, in my view. If it sounds like a Greek tragedy, maybe it is one. Remembering something is not the same as understanding it.
I argued with them that centralized, unelected, undemocratic EU will lead to economic decline, sense of helplessness by the productive nations and individuals, hatred among ethnic groups, catastrophic failures of member economies and governments, social upheavals, and leftists and populist movements (not unlike the corrupted working of our own federal government). My friends listened but I never had the sense that I prevailed. Life was good all these years and the things that worried me seemed remote.
The conversations paralleled in many ways those I’d had with my own countrymen, especially within the “credentialed” classes. I realized that I cannot convince them; I had to leave it to the coming reality to do the job.
Now, the reality is upon us and some people started opening their eyes. It doesn’t happen all at once and it may be messy for a while. It is possible that despite some of his naïvely anti-American attitudes Chris actually endorses Benjamin Franklin’s view:
It is possible but I have my doubts because some of the things Chris wrote. That’s why I asked for a clarification so we don’t waste time. There are many Europeans who understand the American idea of limited constitutional government better than current graduates of our educational institutions but they are a small minority in their own countries.
Chris is struggling to reconcile and logically justify his conflicting views. I can live with that. I don’t know it for sure but I believe he’s is still young. He likes to come here and get abused by libertarians, so maybe something is driving him.
People have to do the work if they care enough. We will see but I don’t have the habit of holding my breath. He seems to have moved on, anyway.
https://youtu.be/mJMSZoM78QU
they are working on a law to require seat belts on commodes
For good reason!
https://youtu.be/iF05gg9odYU
“One word is notably absent from the liberal vocabulary: enough. For the liberal, there is hardly such a thing as “too much” government. There is no point at which liberals say, “Well, we’ve done it. We’ve realized our dreams. We have all the government we need, and we should stop now.” No, they always want more government. There is no such thing as enough government.” – Joseph Sobran
Not true. They think YOU have enough money. And freedom. Too much, in fact.
The PC-Progressive Party (which uses the cover title “Democrat Party”) has an iron-clad list of beliefs. In order to be a member, one must subscribe to this belief system. One hundred percent. At least in public. Toe the Party line. Politically Correct–that’s what it means.
Here is a short list of the required elements of the PC-Prog (Democrat) belief system:
1. Normal-America is irredeemably racist. Blacks and other minorities live a life of constant harassment and hopeless repression by Normal-Americans.
2. Normal-America is virulently sexist. Women live lives of desperate hopelessness. They are forced by the patriarchy to accept social and professional roles that demean and diminish them. Normal-Americans aggressively try to restrict women’s rights to kill fetuses.
3. Normal-America is homophobic. Christian haters thump Bibles in their quest to locate, persecute, prosecute and lynch fun-loving homosexuals, lesbians, transsexuals, and bi-sexuals.
4. Normal-America is stunningly xenophobic. Normal-Americans loathe foreigners. Normal-American society rejects all foreigners and views them as vile, dirty, stinking beasts with unintelligible accents.
5. Normal-America is graspingly imperialist. Normal-Americans seek to conquer, destroy and subjugate peace-loving native cultures in Africa, the Middle East, South America and Asia. America is built on a legacy of imperialist destruction of Native American and Hispanic cultures.
6. Normal-America is greedily capitalist. The American economy destroys poor people with angry demands that they must work. The economy is systematically manipulated by the 1% in order to subjugate the 99%. Capitalism rewards only the lucky few, while the masses suffer.
These tenets are the core of the PC-Prog politics. The beliefs are nearly religious. To be a member, one must never contradict these tenets (in public, or in privately recorded conversations.)
The corollary to the tenets of PC-Progressivism is the “Action Requirement.”
It is simple: Normal-America must be changed.
This is it. That is the entire belief system, and the action plan of our political opponents.
Without understanding what it is that their system believes and requires, we have no hope of count-acting their destruction of our country. Now you know. What will you do about it?
See this short video for details:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVPH_jCBEvA
Nice research and video Kent. Obviously the Soviets and Fabians joined forces, having a common goal of ‘fundamentally transforming’ America. The Progressives were responsible for the prohibition of alcohol, the 18th Amendment, a campaign that started shortly after our Civil War. So the seeds were planted in the Victorian Era, and fertilized with manure imported from Mother Russia during WWI.
Fabianism and Bolshevism are two branches of the same tree….Fabianism has been the primary tool for extending control over the Anglo-American empire, and hence, the world.
Pretty good exposition:
http://fabiansociety.wordpress.com/
A little cook-y but well researched:
http://www.abeldanger.net/2010/12/city-of-london-fabian-society-history.html
One can read Fabians Mackinder and Toynbee (or more recently Brzezinski) to understand current Geopolitical situation. Russia and China have ostensibly fallen outside the control of the Revolution, and must destroyed or brought back, as Eurasia is considered the only potential power that can oppose the globe spanning, Maritime, Mercantilist (financial) power controlled by the Revolution. Here is a well written summary:
http://is.cuni.cz/studium/predmety/index.php?do=download&did=33538&kod=JMB119
I have been very familiar with Fabians for years now, and loathe them by any name.
Well we ought to consider the extent to which they have gained control over the dominant institutions and occupations of “The West”:
Interview with a Russian “Brzezinski”
thesaker.is/interview-of-a-senior-russian-foreign-intelligence-analyst/
On the battle for the Heartland:
voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_03_05/Battlefield-Eurasia-Ukraine-Syria-and-the-Asia-Pacific-as-targets-of-failing-American-imperialism-6672/
voiceofrussia.com/2014_03_12/Battlefield-Eurasia-US-wages-energy-and-geopolitical-proxy-wars-against-Syria-China-Part-2-8429/
And the Peoples Daily
english.peopledaily.com.cn/98649/8570918.html
Only America is not working in America’s interests. Fabian Socialism has captured America and those behind Fabian Socialism are the same as those behind “Communism”. America is working for world socialism, the ultimate or permanent revolution, as Huxley and Blair called it.
P,
From what tree do they branch, and when?
It’s important to understand the roots of the vile belief system that is PC-Progressivism. No professors were the originators, they were the Willing Accomplices who imbibed the payload and inserted the message into our culture.
Focusing on “the Fabians” obscures the massive operations that Muenzenberg successfully carried out against the three main transmission belts of our culture: the media, academia/education, and Hollywood. The most effective Willing Accomplices were lower profile, and avoided the obnoxious.
The entire cultural destruction wrought on the West, and specifically on America, was the brainchild of the Comintern’s genius of covert influence–Muenzenberg. Willi M. ran the Comintern’s overt propaganda operations, and he ran their covert influence operations as well. The covert influence operations were exponentially more effective. Willi’s operations did destroy our culture.
The “Fabians” were German lackey hangers-on of the Comintern’s influence operations. The German professors were, in effect, agents of Muenzenberg’s operation. They were just following Muenzenberg’s ingenious prescriptions to plant the seeds that destroyed Normal western culture. Same for Gramsci. Same for Alinsky. Muenzenberg worked under cover and secretly. His agents worked in the open–spreading his vile and destructive, yet attractive, payload.
Details: http://www.willingaccomplices.com
Progressivism has Eugenics roots; the New Man, genetic upgrade on the old model, will have to cull everyone else to keep the progress of evolution intact.
Gator,
Thanks.
A couple points in response:
1. Note the very precise terminology–it’s really important: “POLITICALLY CORRECT Progressives.” The PC part is the fundamental key. The PC belief system was grafted onto the Progressive movement to create what became Politically Correct Progressivism.
Early “Progressives,” like Teddy Roosevelt, were NOT PC–they did not adhere to the tenets of PC-Progs. But their movement was deliberately infiltrated and co-opted. The PC part was introduced slowly, but surely. The 6 tenets mentioned above are straight from the mouth of the mastermind of this operation, Willi Muenzenberg.
By the early 1930s, the PC-Progs were raising their heads high. Dr George S. Counts, Columbia U. School of Education’s International Institute Russian expert, was recruited by the KGB in his first year at Columbia. For the next 30 years, Counts was the KGB’s covert influence darling. Even today, Counts is heralded by American Education academics as the “father of Social Reconstructionist Education.”
Counts’ message, repeated over and over, around the country, is a perfect example of the message, fed to him by his masters, injected directly into our culture–with the clear goal of destroying Normal America. Here’s a speech from 1932. It’s pretty dense, but quite readable. In it, you will see nearly the entire belief system of the PC-Progs of today laid out clear as a bell:
April 1932, DARE PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION BE PROGRESSIVE?
http://courses.wccnet.edu/~palay/cls2002/counts.htm
2.The “Fabians” were the German lackey hangers-on of the Comintern’s influence operations. The German professors were, in effect, agents of Muenzenberg’s operation. They were just following Muenzenberg’s ingenious prescriptions to destroy Normal western culture. Same for Gramsci. Same for Alinsky. Muenzenberg worked under cover and secretly. His agents worked in the open–spreading his vile and destructive, yet attractive and powerfully effective, payload.
Agreed. The Progressives were definitely not PC, but had the same ultimate goal of destroying America and bringing about communism. The Progressives saw that their racism and open endorsement of eugenics was not working, and joined forces with Muenzenberg’s operation.
Much like we see the socialists and fundamental Islamists joining forces today. Fundamental Islam is anything but PC, and yet finds open arms in the Obama White House.
Communism is the oldest form of government, and has many faces due to its evolution over the ages, just like humanity itself.
Gator,
Politically Correct Progressives are 100% anti-Normal-America.
As they’ve more or less successfully destroyed Normal-America, they also express support for whatever else is anti-Normal-America. With a destroyed immune system, opportunistic infections are able to take hold.
But PC-Progs have no special relationship with Islamic extremists–Obama’s PC-Prog administration has droned more Muslim suspects than Bush imagined possible, exponentially more–and they’ve covertly toppled multiple Muslim governments, including the only Muslim Brotherhood government in history, in Egypt.
PC-Progs do not embrace Islam–nor do they even support Islam. How many PC-Progs pray five times a day and have wives who dress modestly?
The PC-Prog belief system is explicitly anti-Normal-America. They are for whatever is not a straight white male Anglo-Saxon Protestant.
Strange bedfellows…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=19&v=Qrs-1_CHQfI
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/02/07/the-muslim-brotherhood-comes-to-the-white-house/
There is so much more, and you should be aware of this given your connections.
Gator,
Yes, I’m pretty much hyper-aware of any and all connections–it’s been my job and specialty for more than 20 years. The Muslim Brotherhood connections to the White House blather is just that–blather. The Breitbart guys (I was one of the original national security writers for Breitbart’s Big Peace) keep recycling the same old stories from years and years ago. They are not a reliable source on these issues any more–not since Andrew passed away.
The proof is in the pudding. While “Muslim Brotherhood” was visiting the White House, the White House was busy overthrowing the only actual Muslim Brotherhood government in history–in Egypt. The only Muslim Brotherhood head of state in history is now under a death sentence from the military government which the Obama administration supported in the coup that overthrew the Muslim Brotherhood government.
PC-Progressives are destroying our country. With no help at all from Islamic extremists. The lying cheaters at NOAA have no connections to Islamic extremists.
The first PC-Prog American administration, just since 2011, has droned to death 1271 Muslims–in 215 separate attacks. Where’s the love for Islamic extremists?
The PC-Progs have engaged American forces in undeclared wars, against Islamic extremists, in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Kenya, and more countries than Bush ever dared to dream.
How is it again that PC-Progs are somehow in bed with Islamic extremists?
https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/04/14/kill-capture-obama-drone-pakistan-cia-policy-special-operations/
Kent, I very much apprreciate your input and experience, but there is no denying that the MB has infiltrated our administration, and it did not start with Obama. The one thing I have learned in life if nothing else, is that I do not know everything, and I wish you the same wisdom. I know you have a book to sell, but remember that you only know what you have been exposed to, and nothing more.
Muslims kill more Muslims than Christians. Their culture is one of deceit, as outlined in the Koran.
Progressives will also eat their own, Hillary Clinton started the ‘Birther’ movement, there is no honor among thieves. As a fellow skeptic I expect more from you.
Gator,
The first PC-Prog administration (Obama’s) first Chief of Staff (Rahm Emmanuel) is a dual Israeli/US citizen, served in the Israeli Defense Forces, did NOT serve in the American armed forces, and is the son of a Zionist terrorist, He controlled access, policy, and more in the administration. If that’s what a Muslim Brotherhood-dominated administration looks like, then that’s pretty darn strange.
The alleged Muslim Brotherhood connection to PC-Progs is overblown and a distraction.
The proof is in the pudding. This PC-Prog administration has overthrown more Muslim Brotherhood governments (one) than have ever been established previously (zero).
PC-Progs are NOT about Islam. They are about being against Normal-America.
PC-Progs are actively destroying our traditional culture–because they hate our culture–not because they are for Islam, or communism, or anything else. Their actions are strictly anti-….they have no positive feature or beliefs—they are only “against.”
You have not addressed the six men in the photo. I do not accept strawman arguments from anyone, and have heard a completely different narrative from multiple operatives with at least as much as excperience as yourself.
Here are some bios (public) on those six men…
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2401
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2560
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/02/obama-appoints-muslim-brotherhood-linked-muslim-to-head-center-for-strategic-counterterrorism-communications
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/10/obama-picks-islamic-supremacist-defender-of-hamas-and-hizballah-to-represent-us-at-human-rights-conf
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2562
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2565
Refute these claims definitively, or admit that you do not know.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/mb.jpg
Please let me know how you can clear each of these men of the charges.
Each one, definitively.
Gator,
Clear them of the charges? Me?
You can clear the air yourself. Begin with contextual exploration. The “charges:” the US government is infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood. Again, reality check–the USG helped to overthrow the ONLY MB government in history–within the last 24 months. Ask yourself–if the USG was dangerously inflitrated and subverted by the MB, would it overthrow the MB government?
The answer to that question makes any other vetting superfluous. Q.E.D.
But let’s look at the guys in the lurid poster you linked to:
1. “Alikhan was appointed to the Obama Administration in 2009 as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development at the United States Department of Homeland Security. He is also a former Deputy Mayor of Homeland Security and Public Safety for the City of Los Angeles, former federal prosecutor with the United States Attorneys Office in Los Angeles, and a former senior adviser to Attorneys General John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales while serving at the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C.”
He’s definitely a PC-Prog political appointee. But MB? Seriously?
2. Elbiary was on a DHS Community Advisory Board. He was not in the administration, and had no policy or any other say in government matters. MB? Probably not–but a relatively fundamentalist Muslim. But absolutely not an “MB infiltrator of our government.”
3. ” Rashad Hussain is an American attorney, and Special Envoy and Coordinator for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications. Hussain has also served as U.S Special envoy to the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the second largest intergovernmental body after the UN, with 57 member states. Hussain, a Muslim of Indian heritage, has served in the White House Counsel’s Office and on the National Security Council as a political appointee of the Obama Administration. He has also worked in the Department of Justice as a trial attorney and as a criminal prosecutor. In his role as Envoy, Hussain has advised the Administration on policy issues related to the Muslim world. ”
PC-Prog? Absolutely. MB? No.
4. Marayati: “Salam Al Marayati is executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, an American institution which informs and shapes public opinion and policy by serving as a trusted resource to decision makers in government, media and policy institutions. Salam written extensively on Islam, human rights, democracy, Middle East politics, and the Muslim American communities. Salam also works as an advisor to several political, civic and academic institutions seeking to understand the role of Islam and Muslims in America and throughout the world.”
This guy is not even in the Obama administration. And he has nothing to do with the MB. Two strikes and you’re out. Absolutely not an “MB infiltrator of our government.”
5. Magid: “Imam Mohamed Magid, Mohamed Hagmagid is a Sudanese-born American who came to the United States in 1987. He attained his religious education in various Islamic disciplines as a Resident Scholar at Al-Medina Institute. Currently serving as the Executive Director of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS), Imam Magid helped establish exemplary religious services for Muslim communities across the nation to emulate. He has much experience serving the nation-wide Muslim community as ISNA’s East Zone representative and as ISNA Vice President prior to his election in September 2010 as ISNA President. Imam Magid has a long history of commitment to public service through organizations, such as The Peaceful Families Project, Annual Twinning of Mosques and Synagogues, Fairfax Faith Communities in Action, Interfaith Conference of Metropolitan Washington Assembly and the Buxton Interfaith Initiative. Imam Magid strives to create and foster dialogue and increase understanding about Islam. Part of his work with the Buxton Interfaith Initiative included forging a partnership with Rabbi Robert Nosanchuk, then leader of the Northern Virginia Hebrew Congregation in Reston. Both men were recognized by the Washingtonian as “2009’s Washingtonians of the Year” for building bridges between their faith communities.”
Again, has nothing to do with the USG. How can he be a MB infiltrator if he’s not in the government? Otherwise, he’s a mainstream American Muslim. No indications of any links to MB.
6. Patel: “He officially founded IFYC in 2002 with a Jewish friend and a $35,000 grant from the Ford Foundation. Today the organization employs approximately 30 people and has a $4-million operating budget.In addition to his work with IFYC, Patel has spoken at numerous college campuses and conferences across the country. Patel and IFYC partnered with White House officials in developing President Obama’s Interfaith and Community Service Campus Challenge, which invited schools across the nation to make interfaith cooperation a campus priority and launched in 2011. His second book, Sacred Ground: Pluralism, Prejudice, and the Promise of America, was released in August 2012.”
PC-Prog? Absolutely. Any links to the MB? Not a single one. And again, he’s not even a member of the administration.
So, 4 out of 6 of the “MB infiltrators” are not even in the government. The two who are in the administration are typical PC-Prog lawyers. And none of them have any connections, visible or discernible, to the Muslim Brotherhood.
But at least it’s a very striking poster! Very visually appealing!
Kent, I get it. You have a book to sell. We agree that Progressives are evil, but you are wrong about there being no MB infiltration, the bios of each of those men clearly show the connections. And then there is this…
The Western socialist left detests the United States and its capitalist economic structure, and seeks to facilitate that structure’s downfall by any means necessary — including the formation of whatever alliances will further that ultimate objective. One seemingly unlikely alliance that the socialist left has forged is its alliance with radical, fundamentalist Islam, which emphatically and unambiguously rejects virtually everything for which the socialist left claims to stand: the peaceful resolution of international conflict; respect and tolerance for other cultures and faiths; civil liberties; freedom of expression; freedom of thought; human rights; democracy; women’s rights; gay rights; and the separation of church and state.
There could be no stranger bedfellows than Western leftists and Islamic extremists. Yet they have been brought together by the one overriding trait they do share — their hatred for America; their belief that the U.S. is the very embodiment of evil on earth and must consequently be destroyed.
As Osama bin Laden told a CNN interviewer in 1997, “We declared jihad against America because America is unjust, criminal and tyrannical.” This pronouncement does not differ at all, either in substance or tone, from the declarations of the West’s radical left, whose ill will toward America is similarly detectable in the following excerpt from an al Qaeda manifesto:
“America is the head of heresy in our modern world, and it leads an infidel democratic regime that is based upon separation of religion and state and on ruling the people by the people via legislating laws that contradict the way of Allah and permit what Allah has prohibited. This compels the other countries to act in accordance with the same laws in the same ways . . . and punishes any country [that rebels against these laws] by besieging it, and then by boycotting it. By so doing [America] seeks to impose on the world a religion that is not Allah’s.”
While Western leftists make no similar religious references, they do contend, like radical Islamists, that the United States is determined to overrun other nations and dominate the world.
Radical Islam seeks purification and “social justice” by means of jihad, or holy war, whose highest ideal is martyrdom achieved while attempting to conquer an evil worldly power such as the United States, the Great Satan (and Israel, the Little Satan). The radical Islamist’s ultimate goal is to subdue the “infidel” nations and therein institute sharia, or Islamic law, so as to redeem the world for Allah.
The radical left, similarly, advocates revolution as the means of achieving its ends — eliminating capitalism and creating a socialist paradise on earth.
While Islamic radicals seek to purge the world of heresies and of the infidels who practice them, leftist radicals seek to purge society’s collective “soul” of the vices allegedly spawned by capitalism — those being racism, sexism, imperialism, and greed.
Just as Islamic radicals aim to impose their religion on the rest of the world in a totalitarian fashion requiring unwavering obedience, so do radical leftists strive to create an omnipotent socialist state that will control every aspect of daily life and will impose a universal brand of “social justice” on all mankind.
Central to both radical Islam and the radical Western left is an inclination to overthrow the existing order by any means necessary, so as to create a paradise on earth. Leftists may find the bigotry and intolerance of Islamic radicals repugnant, but their desire to rid the world of U.S. “imperialism” and capitalism overrides this revulsion and beckons them to forge the unholy alliance.
In the early stages of the Iraq War, George Galloway — a British Member of Parliament and an inveterate America-hater — gave voice to the mindset underlying the socialist left’s alliance with radical Islam. Galloway was asked: “You often call for uniting Muslim and progressive forces globally. How far is it possible under current situation?” He replied:
“Not only do I think it’s possible but I think it is vitally necessary and I think it is happening already. It is possible because the progressive movement around the world and the Muslims have the same enemies. Their enemies are the Zionist occupation, American occupation, British occupation of poor countries mainly Muslim countries. They have the same interest in opposing savage capitalist globalization which is intent upon homogenizing the entire world turning us basically into factory chickens which can be forced fed the American diet of everything from food to Coca-Cola to movies and TV culture. And whose only role in life is to consume the things produced endlessly by the multinational corporations. And the progressive organizations & movements agree on that with the Muslims…. So on the very grave big issues of the day-issues of war, occupation, justice, opposition to globalization-the Muslims and the progressives are on the same side.”
The leftist Australian journalist John Pilger, who denounced “American imperialism” even as he praised Fidel Castro’s Communist dictatorship, has been another vocal exponent of the alliance between the socialist left and radical Islam. Pilger publicly endorsed the killing of American troops in Iraq during the war that began in 2003. “[T]hey’re legitimate targets,” he said of those troops. “They’re illegally occupying a country.” Pilger openly supported the Iraqi resistance on the grounds that “we can’t afford to be choosy” in acquiring much-needed allies. His sentiment clearly expressed the governing principle of the Islam-leftist alliance: The enemy of my enemy is my friend [whomever he may be].
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=291
Some good stuff on Kent’s blog:
http://intelctweekly.blogspot.com/
The progressives can’t even get Hillary’s New Campaign Logo correct?
http://www.mrctv.org/sites/default/files/uploads/Dan%203/Screen%20Shot%202015-04-14%20at%2011.14.38%20AM.png
It should be obvious to everyone that the arrow is pointing opposite of the proper direction.
I guess they think that denotes a ‘Forward’ direction, and probably thought this looked better than a big red ‘C’.
http://www.worldstatesmen.org/icrc-cr.gif
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-6BXUnN66Kfo/VS8nbeszdVI/AAAAAAAAAA4/VwTL42i3ctE/w426-h283/hillarylogo.jpg
This one is more dynamic:
http://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/hillary-wheelchair.jpg
http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/04/the-internet-reacts-to-hillarys-campaign-logo/comment-page-1/
You people have it all wrong. The progressives only want the government out of our bedrooms:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11536863/US-court-to-decide-if-Alzheimers-patient-was-able-to-consent-to-sex.html
There’s an old joke about a democrat, a republican, and a libertarian, walking down a road at night. They come across a parked car, with two high school kids in it, a boy and a girl, doing what they do in parked cars.
The republican walks up to the window and says, “You two aren’t old enough to be doing that. And I’m sure you’re not married, either. That’s a sin.”
The democrat walks up to the other window and says, “Don’t listen to that Evil White Man. What you’re doing is perfectly natural, and you shouldn’t be ashamed of anything. As long as you’re using a condom. And here’s some Planned Parenthood literature, just in case. And I’ll need you both to sign this consent form, so the government can be sure neither of you is being raped.”
At that point, the libertarian yells, from across the street, “What are you two perverts doing leering at those kids?”
Love it! I’m so glad I grew up in an age where not everyone was considered an enemy of the state. I pity the children of today.
ARIF ALIKHAN
Former deputy mayor of Homeland Security and Public Safety for the City of Los Angeles
Was responsible for derailing the LAPD’s plan to monitor activities within the Los Angeles Muslim community
Was appointed as assistant secretary for the Office of Policy Development in Barack Obama’s Department of Homeland Security in 2009
Became a Professor of Homeland Security and Counterterrorism in 2010
Born (in 1968) in Canada and raised in California by Indian and Pakistani parents, Arif Alikhan graduated from UC-Irvine in 1990 with a bachelor’s degree in social ecology. Three years later he received a J.D. from Loyola Law School and was admitted to the California State Bar. He then clerked for U.S. District Judge Ronald Lew of California’s Central District.
Alikhan subsequently served as a prosecutor in the Los Angeles U.S. Attorney’s office and taught law at the University of Southern California. He also spent time working for the U.S. Department of Justice as the overseer of its Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property Program. In 2002 Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa appointed Alikhan as Deputy Mayor of Homeland Security and Public Safety for the City of Los Angeles, a position he held until 2006.
An opponent of President George W. Bush’s prosecution of the war on Islamic terror, Alikhan was responsible for derailing the LAPD’s efforts to monitor activities within the city’s Muslim community, where numerous radical mosques and madrassas were known to exist, and where some of the 9/11 hijackers had received support from local residents.
In April 2009, President Barack Obama’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano appointed Alikhan as assistant secretary for DHS’s Office of Policy Development. Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ Los Angeles branch, praised the “well-deserved” appointment.
Thirteen days prior to his DHS appointment, Alikhan, a devout Sunni Muslim, had participated in a Muslim Public Affairs Council fundraiser titled “Be the Change,” to support that organization’s leadership-development programs.
In early June 2009, Alikhan spoke at a banquet/fundraiser for the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California (ISCSC). A noteworthy fellow speaker was Agha Saeed, who had previously defended Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Sami Al-Arian during the latter’s prosecution on terrorism charges. At the ISCSC event, Saeed lamented the “Islamophobia” allegedly pervading post-9/11 America, and demanded that the Justice Department stop monitoring U.S. mosques for evidence of extremism.
In November 2010 Alikhan stepped down from his DHS position and took a job as Distinguished Visiting Professor of Homeland Security and Counterterrorism at the National Defense University’s College of International Security Affairs in Washington, DC.
Was appointed as assistant secretary for the Office of Policy Development in Barack Obama’s Department of Homeland Security in 2009
MOHAMED ELIBIARY
Admirer of the late Ayatollah Khomeini
Has advised numerous law-enforcement organizations on homeland security-related matters
Was named to President Obama’s Homeland Security Advisory Council in 2010
Misused classified documents in an effort to promote the notion that “Islamophobia” was widespread
Claims to be a Muslim “deradicalization expert” who seeks to “promote a centrist public-policy environment”
Born in Alexandria, Egypt, Mohamed Elibiary is a Texas-based Muslim who founded Lone Star Intelligence LLC (a security crisis consulting firm) and the Freedom & Justice Foundation (a Muslim nonprofit group established in November 2002 to “promote a centrist public-policy environment in Texas by coordinating the state-level government and interfaith community relations for the organized Texas Muslim community”). This Foundation played a key role in successfully lobbying for the passage of Texas’s Halal Food Law (the state’s first Muslim consumer-protection statute), and for the institution of Islamic prayers (recited by Imams) in both chambers of the State Legislature.
Identifying himself as a conservative Republican, Elibiary is a longtime official of the Texas Republican Party and served as a delegate for Senator John McCain in the 2008 presidential election. He claims that he can help the Party make inroads with Muslim voters by moving its foreign policy in a pro-Islamic direction.
According to the Clarion Project, “Elibiary is known for his almost daily advocacy for the Muslim Brotherhood on Twitter. He admits being intimately involved with the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood, which he describes as a ‘social network.’” Moreover, he has long maintained that the American government “needs to deepen our strategic engagement” with the Brotherhood.
At age 16 Elibiary befriended the CEO of the Holy Land Foundation (HLF), Shukri Abu Baker, who indoctrinated the youngster with propaganda about Israeli persecution of the Palestinians. Soon thereafter, Elibiary began making monthly donations to HLF, and he continued to do so until that Foundation was shuttered by the U.S. government in 2001 due to its terrorist ties.
In 2003 Elibiary served on the board of the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ Dallas-Fort Worth chapter.
In 2004 Elibiary wrote, “Just because I listen to Osama bin Laden’s tapes and agree that the West routinely insults Muslim dignity, that doesn’t make me al-Qaeda. By listening, I gain a better understanding of a philosophy I wish to counter.”
In December 2004 Elibiary was a guest speaker at a Dallas conference titled “A Tribute to the Great Islamic Visionary,” which was held in honor of the late Ayatollah Khomeini. When a reporter subsequently asked Elibiary to explain why he had chosen to appear at an event honoring the iconic Iranian jihadist, Elibiary claimed not to have known in advance about the conference’s agenda. When journalist Rod Dreher of the Dallas Morning News voiced skepticism about Elibiary’s explanation, the latter threatened Dreher, telling him: “Expect someone to put a banana in your exhaust pipe.”
In 2006 Elibiary co-founded the North Texas Islamic Council, to coordinate the activities of the many mosques, Islamic schools, and community groups serving the Dallas-Fort Worth area’s 150,000+ Muslim residents.
In a 2006 letter to the Dallas Morning News, Elibiary defended the early Muslim Brotherhood leader and theorist Sayyid Qutb, known for his extreme anti-Americanism. Said Elibiary: “I’d recommend everyone read Qutb, but read him with an eye to improving America, not just to be jealous with malice in our hearts.”
In 2007 Elibiary spoke at an Imam-training conference held jointly by the North American Imams Federation and the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America. Some excerpts from Elibiary’s presentation include the following:
“The Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, Jordan, Tunis, etc. is a social movement for religious revival that seeks to Islamicize the society through cultural changing Dawah and that includes the political system. Sound familiar? Yup, you’re right. They are the Muslim world’s version of the Evangelical Christian Coalition/Moral Majority movement.”
“We must always resist the temptation to force one group, such as Islamists, to reform by adopting ‘Liberalism’ for example. That would be denying them their self-determination to structure their societies according to their public will.”
“We should remember that them [Islamists] ruling their countries with Shariah law doesn’t mean them coming to our country and using our planes to destroy our buildings.”
Also in 2007, Elibiary condemned the American government’s prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation as a terrorism abetter, and he accused the U.S. of “using the law to force compliance with unjust foreign policies.” Further, Elibiary wrote that Shukri Abu Baker, CEO of the Foundation, was a victim of political persecution. Emphasizing that Baker had done “absolutely nothing ‘criminal,’” and that the case against him was “largely built on associations to convict First-Amendment-protected rights,” Elibiary added: “This global war on terror needs a new strategy because we’re destroying ourselves more than al-Qaeda ever could.”
Notwithstanding his professed admiration for the likes of Khomeini, Qutb, and Baker, Elibiary managed to cultivate a reputation as a moderate Muslim — “the country’s leading Muslim deradicalization expert,” according to one media report. Indeed, he went on to advise numerous federal, state and local law-enforcement organizations on homeland security-related matters.
In 2008-09 Elibiary was a Fellow at the University of Southern California’s American Muslim Civic Leadership Institute, an organization whose list of guest speakers included Zaid Shakir, who: (a) believes that Muslims cannot accept the legitimacy of the existing American order; (b) impugns the U.S. for its “pattern of demonization, destabilization, and the invasion of hapless Third World nations”; and (c) claims that organizations such as al Qaeda and Hamas are pursuing manifestly legitimate objectives.
In December 2009 Elibiary helped establish the Texas Fusion Center Policy Council, to help state and local law-enforcement personnel improve their information-sharing, analytical capabilities, and community relations.
In October 2010, President Barack Obama’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary, Janet Napolitano, appointed Elibiary, who had recently begun working with the Texas Department of Public Safety’s advisory board, to DHS’s Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC). Over the ensuing four years, Elibiary would also serve on the DHS Countering Violent Extremism Working Group (CVEWG) and the DHS Faith-Based Security and Communications Advisory Committee.
In his work with CVEWG, which was responsible for reviewing counter-terrorism training guidelines, Elibiary played a key role in doing away with the practice of educating DHS and FBI personnel regarding the ideology and tactics of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood. Indeed, he and fellow activists condemned FBI curricula and training materials that drew any connections between Islamist supremacism, jihad, and terrorism. National security expert and political analyst Ryan Mauro explains how Elibiary helped purge these materials:
“On October 4, 2011, Elibiary joined other Islamist activists and leftists in writing [FBI] Director [Robert] Mueller demanding that the FBI’s training materials be purged of such offensive material. Fifteen days later, he [Elibiary] was among 59 individuals and groups who wrote [to] then-Homeland Security Advisor to the President, John Brennan, insisting that the purge be extended to the training and trainers involved with the military, the intelligence community and homeland security/law enforcement community, as well. On November 11th, Brennan agreed.”
This document purge was accompanied by the issuance of new “Countering Violent Extremism” DHS training guidelines which essentially recommended marginalizing adversaries of the Brotherhood, specifically Muslim “reformers.”
Also in October 2011, it was reported that Elibiary had recently been given access to a highly sensitive Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) database — known as the Homeland Security State and Local Intelligence Community of Interest, or HS SLIC. This database contained hundreds of thousands of intelligence reports that were intended solely to aid law-enforcement agencies. In fact, Elibiary was the only Homeland Security Advisory Council member (out of 26) who was permitted to view the HS SLIC.
Elibiary abused this privilege, however, when he gathered together a number of classified documents that, in his view, promoted “Islamophobia,” and presented them to a left-leaning media outlet, in hopes that the latter would write a story about DPS’s bias against Muslims. (He also sought to advance the notion that Republican Texas Governor Rick Perry was an “Islamophobe.”) But the media outlet declined to do the story, saying: “We looked at the reports, and they weren’t as he [Elibiary] had billed them to us. They seem to be pretty straightforward, nothing remotely resembling Islamophobia that we saw. I think he was hoping we would bite and not give it too much of a look in light of the other media outfits jumping on the Islamophobia bandwagon.”
When journalist Patrick Poole asked a spokesman of the aforementioned media outlet if there was any indication as to what may have motivated Elibiary’s actions, the reply was unambiguous:
“Oh, self-promotion definitely. It was clear up front that he wanted to be a quoted source in the story. We’ve used him as an unnamed source in previous stories. There’s nothing unusual or unseemly about that because officials do it all the time, but this was the first time he approached us with documents. Honestly, if they had been what he represented them as we would have probably run with the story. But we looked at them and saw this was a partisan hatchet job that could blow back on us so we passed on it.”
In early November 2011, Elibiary’s access to the HS SLIC database was revoked, though he retained his post as a DHS advisor. And in September 2013 he was promoted to senior advisor at the Homeland Security Advisory Council, a title held only by a small number of select members.
Elibiary received significant attention in June 2012, when five Republican lawmakers (most prominently, Michele Bachmann) sent letters to the inspectors general at the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, Defense, and State, asking that they investigate government “policies and activities that appear to be the result of influence operations conducted by individuals and organizations associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.” Elibiary was named in these letters along with Arif Alikhan, Salam al-Marayati, Rashad Hussain, Mohamed Magid, and Eboo Patel.
In a 2013 interview, Elibiary described the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which has ties to many Muslim extremists including Hamas, as an innocent “community organization” with no involvement in any criminal activity.
In the same interview, Elibiary described the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in Egypt as “a pragmatic, non-violent and generally pluralistic sociopolitical movement by Egyptian cultural standards.” It was “not accurate,” he said, “to paint MB-Egypt as dogmatic, violent or autocratic, much less more sensationalized terms like dictatorial, totalitarian or jihadist.”
In October 2013, Elibiary said: “I do consider the United States of America an Islamic country with an Islamically compliant constitution.” In other words, he believed that the U.S. Constitution and Sharia law reflect basically the same values and principles.
Also in 2013, Elibiary spoke at length about what he viewed as the pervasive problem of Islamophobia in the United States:
“Islamophobia or anti-Muslim bigotry as I prefer to call it, today in [America], to me comes in three varieties. The first form of Islamophobia is simply an irrational bigotry towards anything Islam-or Muslim-related, and that’s a very small percentage of our population that I don’t really worry about because it’s driven by a diminishing emotional radicalization dynamic.
“The second form of Islamophobia is a Western civilization phenomenon, aptly coined ‘anti-Semitism on training wheels’ by Suhail Khan, a former Bush White House official … This form is strongly rejected by Jewish community leaders because it smacks of a ‘Protocols of Elders of Zion’-type narrative about Muslims trying to take over the world. It tells Americans that Islamic theology is uniquely a threat to our way of life and therefore needs special preventative legal measures, just as in centuries past, Western anti-Semites used to make the same arguments of Jews and their faith as being incompatible with enlightened European Christian values.
“The third form of Islamophobia treats the … American Muslim community as a counter-intelligence subversive front group for the international Islamist movement known as the Muslim Brotherhood. This approach treats the American Muslim community with undeserved and unfair suspicion, and marginalizes a sizable portion of ourfellow citizens out of the political mainstream, like a pariah.”
In the spring of 2014, as the barbaric terrorist group ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq & Syria) violently overran vast swaths of Iraqi territory in its quest to establish a new Islamic caliphate, Elibiary said on Twitter: “Kind of comical watching pundits on some US TV channels freak out about an #ISIS #Caliphate.” He continued, “Easy folks, take deep breath & relax. #Iraq.”
Then, in June 2014, Elibiary tweeted that the reestablishment of an Islamic caliphate was in fact “inevitable.” Comparing the concept of a caliphate to the European Union, he claimed that both U.S. political parties were “headed in [the] direction” of endorsing it.
In September 2014, the DHS, which had long been under pressure from Congress to investigate Elibiary’s apparent radicalism, decided to drop Elibiary from his Advisory Council post. “I suspect they’re cutting him loose so they don’t have any more congressional inquiries about how they handled, or more accurately didn’t handle, that matter,” said counterterrorism expert Patrick Poole.
Elibiary, for his part, put a positive spin on the termination, announcing that he had voluntarily decided to leave his DHS job in order to focus on “reforming” the conservative movement prior to the 2016 presidential election.
Has advised numerous law-enforcement organizations on homeland security-related matters
Was named to President Obama’s Homeland Security Advisory Council in 2010
Rashad Hussain
Rashad Hussain was previously the Obama administration’s special envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the thuggish international organization that is engaged in a full-scale campaign to intimidate Western governments into adopting hate speech codes that will effectively quash criticism of Islam – including jihad violence perpetrated in its name. Rashad Hussain is an apposite choice for this position, since several years ago he defended a notorious U.S.-based leader of a jihad terrorist group.
But someone doesn’t want you to know that, and made a clumsy attempt to cover it up.
In 2004, Rashad Hussain, then a Yale law student, declared that the investigation and prosecution of University of South Florida professor Sami al-Arian, who ultimately pled guilty to charges involving his activities as a leader of the terror group Palestinian Islamic Jihad and was recently deported, was a “politically motivated persecution” designed “to squash dissent.”
Hussain’s remarks in support of Al-Arian were published in the jihad-enabling Washington Report on Middle East Affairs in November 2004. But now all that has gone down the memory hole. The Washington Report’s archived version of this November 2004 article lacks two paragraphs that were included in the original version: the ones quoting Rashad Hussain. Otherwise the article is unchanged.
The Washington Report editors, caught red-handed, decided to brazen it out, and blame their accusers – a tried-and-true tactic that is also frequently employed by jihadists in the West. They insist that there was no cover-up, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a venomous Islamophobe: according to CNS News, “WRMEA news editor and executive director Delinda Hanley denied there was a ‘cover-up,’ and implied that anti-Muslim discrimination was behind the fact this was now being raised.”
Sure. It’s just “anti-Muslim discrimination” to be concerned about Rashad Hussain’s support for Al-Arian, a vicious suicide-bombing supporter who chanted “Death to America” and “Death to Israel,” and clearly meant it. When two Islamic Jihad suicide bombers killed eighteen people in Israel in 1995, Al-Arian called them “two mujahidin martyred for the sake of God.”
But there was no cover-up! It was all a mistake, you see: according to the Washington Report now, Sami Al-Arian’s daughter, Laila Al-Arian, actually said the words that were attributed to Rashad Hussain.
But this explanation doesn’t make sense, since the article was altered just to remove the quotes, not to change the name of the person quoted. Also, the author of the original story, Shereen Kandil, contradicts the Washington Report’s explanation, telling Patrick Goodenough of CNS:
“When I worked as a reporter at WRMEA, I understood how important it was to quote the right person, and accurately. I have never mixed my sources and wouldn’t have quoted Rashad Hussain if it came from Laila al-Arian. If the editors from WRMEA felt they wanted to remove Rashad Hussain from the article, my assumption is that they did it for reasons other than what you’re saying. They never once contacted me about an ‘error’ they claim I made.’”
Was the Washington Report covering for Rashad Hussain at its own discretion, or at the behest of someone else? Did Barack Obama himself know about this cover-up? Did someone in the White House or the State Department find out about Hussain’s defense of Al-Arian, and act to cover for the bright young special envoy before this defense was discovered and he became known as a terror apologist? We will probably never know. And now Rashad Hussain heads up a key center supposedly devoted to “countering violent extremism.” What could possibly go wrong?
“Report: Obama’s New Anti-ISIS Propaganda Head Tied to Muslim Brotherhood,” by Edwin Mora, Breitbart, February 17, 2015 (thanks to Pamela Geller):
The Obama administration is revamping its efforts to combat Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL) propaganda. ISIS and its supporters produce “as many as 90,000 tweets and other social media responses every day,” reports The New York Times.
An empowered Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications, currently a small component of the U.S. State Department, will spearhead the new campaign to fight the ISIS propaganda machine.
Rashad Hussain, a Muslim American with close ties to the White House, will replace Alberto Fernandez, the center’s director, according to The Times.
Hussain, who has reportedly participated in events linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, currently serves as Obama’s special envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. He will take over when Fernandez retires in April.
“Hussain, a devout Muslim, has a history of participating in events connected with the Muslim Brotherhood,” reported Cal Thomas in an article published by Townhall.
Citing Egypt’s Rose El-Youssef magazine, The Investigative Project on Terrorism reported that Hussain “maintained close ties with people and groups that [the magazine] says comprise the Muslim Brotherhood network in America.”
Some critics describe Hussain as a Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer. He is not a confirmed member of the group.
An added component called the Information Coordination Cell will be part of the newly revamped center.
It will be “staffed by intelligence and Pentagon analysts among others” and “will be responsible for the broader coordination functions.”
“Skeptics of the new [anti-propaganda] campaign voiced concerns that the program is an attempt by the White House to end a long-simmering turf war with the counterterrorism center’s director, Alberto Fernandez, and exercise more control over the kinds of messages that are produced and coordinated with domestic and international partners,” notes The Times.
“Other officials questioned whether even a newly empowered center at the State Department would be up to the task. Operating the center on a shoestring budget of about $5 million a year, Mr. Fernandez, a respected Middle East specialist and career Foreign Service officer, and his supporters have long complained that neither the State Department nor the White House fully supported or properly financed the center’s activities,” the article adds.
The Obama administration plans “to harness all the existing attempts at counter-messaging by much larger federal departments, including the Pentagon, Homeland Security and intelligence agencies,” explains The Times.
The Times added:
The center would also coordinate and amplify similar messaging by foreign allies and nongovernment agencies, as well as by prominent Muslim academics, community leaders and religious scholars who oppose the Islamic State, also called ISIS or ISIL, and who may have more credibility with ISIS’ target audience of young men and women than the American government.
About 80 people will staff the newly-empowered center.
“We’re getting beaten on volume, so the only way to compete is by aggregating, curating and amplifying existing content,” Richard A. Stengel, the under secretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs, said on Monday, NYT reports.
He admitted that anti-ISIS propaganda efforts by the Obama administration “could have been better coordinated,” adds the article.
In its arsenal, the U.S. government has “more than 350 State Department Twitter accounts, combining embassies, consulates, media hubs, bureaus and individuals, as well as similar accounts operated by the Pentagon, the Homeland Security Department and foreign allies,” points out The Times….
Rashad Hussain was previously the Obama administration’s special envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation
Salam al-Marayati
What does Salam al-Marayati, who blamed Israel for 9/11 and defends the jihad terrorists Hamas and Hizballah, and is one of the most arrogant of Islamic supremacists in a field crowded with contenders, know about human rights?
“Criticism Mounts Over State Envoy,” from the Washington Free Beacon, October 5 (thanks to Alger):
Jewish leaders expressed outrage Friday over the State Department’s praise for, and defense of, a controversial Muslim leader who has defended terrorist groups and suggested that Israel may have been responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Salam al-Marayati, founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), was picked to represent the United States government at the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s (OSCE) annual 10-day human rights conference, the Human Dimension Implementation Meetings (HDIM).
Al-Marayati’s well-known anti-Israel bona fides prompted Jewish leaders and others to express outrage over the Obama administration’s selection.
“It is regrettable that someone with such distorted, conspiratorial views””even with a lackluster apology””is delegated by our government to represent our country abroad,” the Anti-Defamation League said in a statement to the Free Beacon.
Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, argued that the State Department is showing inconsistency by touting an individual who has defended the militant groups Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which are designated by the U.S. as terrorist organizations.
“One would assume that individuals selected to represent the United States at an international human rights conclave would share our government’s longstanding policy that Hamas and Hezbollah are dangerous terrorist organizations,” Cooper told the Free Beacon. “But Mr. Salam al-Marayati and his organization are long-time advocates that these deadly terror groups be removed from the U.S. terrorist list.”
“With terrorism continuing to roil the Middle East,” Cooper added, “the question is why the U.S. State Department would say he is “˜highly credible”?”
Josh Block, a former Clinton administration official who now serves as CEO of The Israel Project, said the State Department’s defense of al-Marayati lacks credibility.
“That statement, defending a person who is clearly a terrorist sympathizer and deeply hostile to Israel, calls into question the credibility of the person who gave it, and it raises a very serious question: What exactly is the U.S. government saying here?” Block asked.
“It is inexplicable and deeply concerning that a person who has suggested Israel was responsible for the 9/11 attacks and advocated for terrorist organizations including Hamas and Hezbollah, which has killed more Americans than any terrorist group except al Qaeda, would be described as “˜valued” and “˜highly credible” by our government,” Block said.
The State Department, however, defended al-Marayati’s participation, calling him “valued and highly credible.”
“Mr. al-Marayati has been involved in U.S. government initiatives for almost 10 years and has been a valued and highly credible interlocutor on issues affecting Muslim communities,” a spokesman for the U.S. Mission to the OSCE told the Free Beacon Thursday in a statement. “He was invited to participate in this year’s HDIM as a reflection of the wide diversity of backgrounds of the American people.”
Al-Marayati was criticized by pro-Israel leaders when he recommended that the U.S. “put the state of Israel on the [9/11] suspect list,” according to the New York Times.
“If we”re going to look at suspects, we should look to the groups that benefit the most from these kinds of incidents, and I think we should put the state of Israel on the suspect list because I think this diverts attention from what’s happening in the Palestinian territories so that they can go on with their aggression and occupation and apartheid policies,” al-Marayati told a radio host, according to the Times.
The U.S. Embassies in Poland and Brussels had commended al-Marayati’s participation in the human rights forum, according to statements on their respective websites.
MPAC, the organization al-Marayati helped create, has been condemned by Jewish groups for promoting false articles claiming that Israel harvests Palestinian organs, the latest iteration of a centuries-old anti-Semitic blood libel.
Salam al-Marayati, founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), was picked to represent the United States government at the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s (OSCE) annual 10-day human rights conference, the Human Dimension Implementation Meetings (HDIM)
MOHAMED MAGID
President of the Islamic Society of North America
Accused the Bush administration of waging a “war against Islam and Muslims”
Says that media references to jihad as “holy war” constitute a “misuse” of that term
Was named to President Obama’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2011
Persuaded DHS to erase from its “Countering Violent Extremism” curriculum any suggestion that Muslim terrorism draws its inspiration from the laws and doctrines of Islam
See also: Islamic Society of North America
Born in northern Sudan in 1965, Mohamed Magid studied Islam under African Sunni scholars, one of whom was his own father, the Grand Mufti of Sudan. In 1987 Magid immigrated to the United States, where he took college courses in psychology and family counseling, and he taught classes on the Koran at Howard University in Washington, DC. In 1997 Magid became imam of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS), a mosque located in Sterling, Virginia. Soon thereafter, he became affiliated with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), first as its East Zone representative, then as vice president, and finally as president (a post to which he was elected in September 2010). He continues to head both ISNA and ADAMS to this day.
Ten days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Magid, angered by what he perceived to be a growing anti-Muslim sentiment among the American people, belligerently told journalists: “We cannot be apologetic about being Muslims in this country … We have a 
right to be Muslim.”
In March 2002, federal agents raided the offices of many northern-Virginia-based Muslim organizations, including ADAMS, on suspicion that they were providing material support to terrorists. This initiative, known as “Operation Green Quest,” was the largest investigation of terror-financing ever conducted anywhere in the world. Soon after the raids had been completed, Magid held a public meeting in the town of Sterling, where he encouraged “community building” among the groups that were being investigated. To this meeting, he invited such notables as Kit Gage of the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom; Mahdi Bray, political advisor for the Muslim Public Affairs Council; and Nihad Awad, the pro-Hamas executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Awad told the outraged crowd: “This is a war against Islam and Muslims. Our administration [i.e., the Bush administration] has the burden of proving otherwise.”
Notwithstanding his combative track record, Magid has cultivated, in media and political circles, an image as a moderate Muslim. The Huffington Post, for one, has dubbed him “America’s Imam.” In 2005 Time magazine published a lengthy profile of Magid, likewise depicting him as a voice of moderation who “work[s] closely with the FBI,” “regularly opens doors for [FBI] agents trying to cultivate contacts in his Muslim community,” and “alerts the bureau when suspicious persons approach his congregation.” The Time report, however, angered many of Magid’s Muslim constituents who viewed the FBI as their enemy. Consequently, Magid felt compelled to issue a “clarifying statement” explaining that his meetings with FBI personnel were intended mainly to “convey … that our Muslim community needs to be treated as partners, not as suspects,” and to “work with law enforcement to preserve our civil liberties and civil rights.” Further, Magid emphasized that he and his fellow Muslim leaders did “not use these monthly meetings to report upon the activities of our community members.”
Also in 2005, the ADAMS website displayed a list of speakers who had recently appeared at the mosque. Among these individuals were ADAMS chairmam Ahmed Tontonji, who was indicted in Operation Green Quest and was named as a defendant in a $1 trillion lawsuit filed by more than 600 surviving relatives of victims who had died in the 9/11 attacks, and Johari Abdul Malik, an Imam who had defended numerous Islamic radical and terrorist figures.
In 2011 President Barack Obama appointed Magid to serve on the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Countering Violent Extremism Working Group. In this position, Magid was authorized to train and advise personnel affiliated with the FBI and other federal agencies. He soon became a regular visitor to the White House, and merged as perhaps the most influential and sought-after Muslim authority in the United States.
In his new DHS role, Magid, claiming that media references to jihad as “holy war” constituted a “misuse” of the term, asked Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez to: arrange for Magid to meet regularly with top Justice Department officials; allow Magid to reeducate FBI agents vis a vis Islam and its practitioners; and carefully avoid criticism of Islam, which Magid characterized as “religious bigotry and hate.” Magid and other Muslim lobbyists also persuaded government officials to ban the practice, at airports, of conducting the extra security checks on passengers traveling from a number of Islamic countries — checks that had been instituted after a Nigerian Muslim tried to blow up a passenger plane on Christmas Day 2009.
In response to pressure from Magid and his fellow lobbyists, DHS carefully erased from its “Countering Violent Extremism” curriculum any suggestion that Muslim terrorism drew its inspiration from the laws and doctrines of Islam. In 2012, the FBI purged some 700 documents and 300 presentations from its training materials and lesson plans.
On March 8, 2013, Magid and ten religious leaders met with President Obama for a 90-minute conversation about immigration reform. Also present at the meeting was senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett. Three days later, Magid took part in a meeting with Obama where the President listened to “recommendations” designed to help him prepare for his upcoming diplomacy trip to the Middle East.
In addition to his DHS work, Magid has also served with the National Security Council and has been a member of the FBI’s Muslim, Sikh, and Arab Advisory Board.
Was named to President Obama’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2011
EBOO PATEL
Has ties to Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Rashid Khalidi, Mumia Abu-Jamal, and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf
Was appointed to President Barack Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships in 2009
Describes the revolutionary communist Van Jones as an “American patriot,” a “faith hero,” and one of “the true giants of history”
Born November 9, 1975 in Mumbai, India, Eboo Patel was raised in Glen Ellyn, Illinois. After earning a bachelor’s degree in sociology from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, he taught at an alternative-education program for high-school dropouts in Chicago and, inspired by Dorothy Day’s Catholic Worker Movement, established a cooperative living community for activists and artists in Chicago’s Uptown area.
Patel, a Muslim, went on to earn a doctorate in the sociology of religion from Oxford University. During his Oxford years, he ran interfaith youth projects in India, South Africa, and Sri Lanka. In 2002 Patel and a Jewish friend co-founded, with the help of a $35,000 grant from the Ford Foundation, the Chicago-based InterFaith Youth Corps (IFYC) as a forum where “service” could be used as a “bridge” to unite “young people from different faiths.” Patel remains IFYC’s executive director to this day.
In 2005 Patel and several young radicals co-authored the book Letters from Young Activists: Today’s Rebels Speak Out. Among Patel’s co-authors were Chesa Boudin (the adopted son of former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers) and Ismail Khalidi (the son of Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi). The book’s Preface was written by Ayers’ wife, Weather Underground co-founder Bernardine Dohrn. The back cover featured an endorsement from the convicted cop-killer and former Black Panther Party member Mumia Abu-Jamal. And on the Acknowledgments page, Patel and his fellow authors thanked Ayers personally for the “guidance” and “encouragement” he had provided.
In 2006 Patel published Building the Interfaith Youth Movement: Beyond Dialogue to Action. The book’s Afterword was written by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, famous for having led an effort to construct a large mosque near the site of the 9/11 attacks in Manhattan.
In Patel’s 2007 book, Saving Each Other, Saving Ourselves, the author recounts discussions that he had with Imam Rauf regarding the future of Islam in the United States. “Islam is a religion that has always been revitalized by its migration,” writes Patel. “America is a nation that has been constantly rejuvenated by immigrants. There is now a critical mass of Muslims in America.” The website of the American Society for Muslim Advancement, an organization co-founded by Rauf, once listed Patel as one of the top “Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow.”
In a 2007 interview with National Public Radio to promote his next newly published book, Acts of Faith, Patel was asked about the “affinity” he felt for the radicalism of Bill Ayers, as he described in the book. Noting that “I actually grew up in the same hometown that Bill Ayers did,” Patel replied: “I was kind of taught the same myths about America, a land of freedom and equality and justice, etc., etc. And then, when I got to college, I saw people eating out of garbage cans for dinner, and I saw Vietnam vets drinking mouthwash for the alcohol, and I thought to myself, this is not the myth that I grew up with.” This harsh reality, Patel said, caused him to feel enormous “rage,” and he credited the “faith-based movement” for having helped him “direc[t] that rage in a direction far more compassionate and far more merciful—with the Catholic Worker Movement.” “Had [I] been one of the people involved in the Weather Underground who were sitting at my kitchen table when I was 18 years old and raging,” said Patel, “my life could have been very different.”
In a June 2008 interview with the leftist evangelical ministry Sojourners, Patel reiterated the sense of rage he had felt upon realizing that “everything you were taught was wrong—about fairness, about equality, about Christopher Columbus, about Thomas Jefferson.” He elaborated that the faith movement had given him a “way to have a radical view of the world—radical equality, radical peace, radical possibility—that is love-based, not anger-based.”
In February 2009, Patel was appointed to President Barack Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships.
In an October 2009 article in Newtopia magazine, a liberal cultural publication, Patel asserted that “Muslim totalitarians” were not all that different from “the Christian totalitarians in America,” “the Jewish totalitarians in Israel,” or “the Hindu totalitarians in India.”
In late July 2011, Patel spoke at the main event of a three-day convention held by the Muslim Students Association. Specifically, he participated in a panel alongside Tariq Ramadan (grandson of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna) and Siraj Wahhaj (who was named as a possible co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing).
In 2011 Patel depicted Van Jones, the revolutionary communist who had served several months as President Obama’s “green jobs” czar, as an “American patriot,” a “faith hero,” and one of “the true giants of history.”
Patel is a regular contributor to CNN, National Public Radio, and the Washington Post. He has blogged for the Huffington Post, Sojourners, and USA Today, among other outlets. Moreover, he has served on the Council on Foreign Relations’ religious advisory committee, the Aga Khan Foundation’s national committee, and the Duke University Islamic Studies Center’s advisory board. He is a fellow of the Ashoka Foundation, and has spoken in such major venues as the Clinton Global Initiative and the Nobel Peace Prize Forum.
Was appointed to President Barack Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships in 2009
Gator, well answered.
I am curious what MB government Kent thinks Obama helped overthrow. I know of no MB governments, other then the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated Egyptian government of Mohamed Morsi, which as far as I can recall Obama strangely supported, and the military overthrew.
Six for six. Your math is off Kent.
These people are being invited to advise our government. Apparently this is outside your expertise.
But don’t feel bad, my brother works as a high level manager at NASA and did noy know about NASA’s climate fraud until I showed it to him.
I’m sure there are things you know that I do not, but the fact remains nobody knows everything.
One of many examples of the POTUS support of the MB in Egypt…
“In recent cases, Egyptian courts have sentenced a writer to 5 years in prison for allegedly promoting atheism, sentenced a lawyer to a year in prison for allegedly insulting Islam in a private conversation, and fined a Christian schoolteacher $14,000 for allegedly insulting Muhammed in her classroom.
These recent revelations pile on top of the “old” news, including violations of the peace treaty with Israel, failing to protect our American embassy from attacks, and launching systematic crackdowns on Egypt’s Coptic Christian community.
Against this backdrop of Shariah and jihad – and hidden behind the blanket news coverage of the Obama administration’s other scandals – the White House has decided to increase its financial support for the Muslim Brotherhood, quietly clearing the way for the U.S. to give Egypt $1.3 billion in military aid.
On May 10, the very day that Lois Lerner issued her contrived apology for the IRS targeting conservative groups, Secretary of State John Kerry formally waived – on national security grounds – statutory requirements that he certify that Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood government was “implementing policies to protect freedom of expression, association, and religion, and due process of law” before providing any further American military aid.
Think about this for a moment: The Obama administration threw the Mubarak regime (for all its flaws, a stalwart American ally that kept peace with Israel) under the bus ostensibly because of its human rights violations but is waiving human rights conditions to prop up a more brutal jihadist government.
Let’s not forget the motto of the Muslim Brotherhood: “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Koran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”
That is the organization that we are empowering – that we are arming – at American taxpayer expense.
In the coming days and weeks, secular and Christian opposition leaders are planning nationwide protests against a Morsi regime that has proven competent at implementing Shariah law but not at running an economy.
Morsi’s jihadist allies plan a crackdown, and if and when they succeed, you may see the terrible sight of American-made and taxpayer-purchased tanks and other armored vehicles literally crushing the Christian opposition.
The saying goes that there is “no better friend and no worse enemy” than a United States Marine.
The Obama administration has turned this on its head. — When it comes to the Middle East, we have proven to be the worst of friends and the best of enemies.
We sat on our hands during Iran’s Green Revolution, when the Mullahs were briefly in danger of being overthrown.
We similarly sat on our hands in the early days of the Syrian uprising against the brutal, Iran-allied Assad regime, before jihadists had taken over the Syrian opposition.
But we acted quickly to support the Egyptian uprising, tossing aside a longtime ally.
Across the Middle East, jihad is ascendant. The Mullahs remain comfortably in power in Iran (busy building a bomb), Syria’s opposition is dominated by Al Qaeda-affiliated militias, and Egypt is firmly in the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood.
And now we’re arming Egypt and considering arming jihadist rebels in Syria.
The Obama administration is doubling down on failure – at the expense of Egyptian Christians and the American taxpayer.
Jay Sekulow is Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), which focuses on constitutional law. He is author of the New York Times bestseller, “Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can’t Ignore.” He hosts “Jay Sekulow Live” — a daily radio show which is broadcast on more than 850 stations nationwide as well as Sirius/XM satellite radio. Follow him on Twitter @JaySekulow
BTW – This graphic is from a publication with which you are affiliated…
https://i0.wp.com/www.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/mb.jpg
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/frontpagemag-com/the-muslim-brotherhood-infiltrates-obama-administration/
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/kent-clizbe/solving-the-cia%E2%80%99s-pc-problems/
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/kent-clizbe/putins-spy-ring/
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/kent-clizbe/pc-casualties/
Apparently the MB in Egypt wanted Syria overthrown. The lost power, but the POTUS still championed that cause.
“CAIRO – Under Hosni Mubarak’s rule, Egypt’s authorities took a tough line on Egyptians coming home after waging “jihad” in places like Afghanistan, Chechnya or the Balkans, fearing they would bring back extremist ideology, combat experience and a thirst for regime change. In most cases, they were imprisoned and tortured.
But after Mubarak’s overthrow and his replacement by an elected Islamist president, jihad has gained a degree of legitimacy in Egypt, and the country has become a source of fighters heading to the war in Syria.
Egyptian militants are known to have been travelling to Syria to fight alongside Sunni rebels for more than year — but their movements were done quietly. But in recent days, a string of clerics have called for jihad in Syria, with some calling for volunteers to go fight against President Bashar Assad’s regime.
On Saturday, Morsi attended a rally by hard-line clerics who have called for jihad and spoke before a cheering crowd at a Cairo stadium, mainly Islamists. Waving a flag of Egypt and the Syrian opposition, he ripped into the Syrian regime, announced Egypt was cutting ties with Damascus and denounced Lebanon’s Shiite Hezbollah guerrillas for fighting alongside Assad’s forces.
Clerics at the rally urged Morsi to back their calls for jihad to support rebels. Morsi did not address their calls and did not mention jihad. But his appearance was seen as in implicit backing of the clerics’ message. It came after a senior presidential aide last week said that while Egypt was not encouraging citizens to travel to Syria to help rebels, they were free to do so and the state would take no action against them.
Khalil el-Anani, an Egyptian expert on Islamist groups, called the move “Morsi’s endorsement of jihad in Syria” and warned it was “a strategic mistake that will create a new Afghanistan in the Middle East.”
So evidence that the US admin use drones to targets Muslims, means nothing without deciphering which Muslims are targeted and why