Morsi’s Maneuver in Egypt

Editor’s Note – The author of the following article Andrew C. McCarthy, is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and the executive director of the Philadelphia Freedom Center. He is the author, most recently, of Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy, which was published by Encounter Books.

He is also a former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. A Republican, he is most notable for leading the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others. The defendants were convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and planning a series of attacks against New York City landmarks.[1] He also contributed to the prosecutions of terrorists who bombed US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He resigned from the Justice Department in 2003.

He has used the West’s democracy fetish to put a gun to his population’s head.

By Andrew C. McCarthy – NRO

Phase II of Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi’s declaration of sweeping dictatorial powers was completed on Thursday night. That is when the “constituent assembly” hastily completed a draft constitution that would enshrine sharia principles as fundamental law.

Morsi grabbed the reins with a shrewd caveat: His dictatorship would end once the draft constitution was approved by Egyptians in a national referendum — which is to say, once the dictatorship had served its purpose. Nearly three months ago, in my e-book Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy (which is about to be published in paperback), I explained that Morsi’s agglomeration of power — which was already underway only weeks after his election — was just a placeholder. He is an Islamic-supremacist hardliner whose ultimate goal has always been to impose sharia, the real dictatorship.

Remember the Brotherhood’s notorious motto, which includes the proclamation “the Koran is our law.” It is about to be. In effect, Morsi has used the West’s democracy fetish to put a gun to his population’s head: Either democratically approve anti-democratic sharia or accept the sharia-compliant rule of your democratically elected Islamist despot. Some choice.

Naturally, secularists and religious minorities are grousing. This has the Western media, once again, in full spring-fever flush. For our intelligentsia, the Middle East is a wonderland where Islamists are imagined to be “moderate” (even “largely secular”!) and — to hedge their bets, on the off chance that the Islamists turn out to be, well, Islamists — the population is imagined to be teeming with freedom-loving Jamal al-Madisons who crave American-style civil rights. In reality, supremacist Islam is the predominant ideology of the region. The Muslim Brotherhood is strong because it is the avant-garde of the Islamic masses. Non-Islamist democrats are a decided minority.

Of course, in a place like Egypt, with its population of 80 million people, a decided minority can easily be masqueraded as the majority. The West’s progressive media is good at that — ignoring tea-party throngs while lavishing coverage on five-person Occupy protests as if they were a groundswell. But, you see, the hocus-pocus works here only because we’ve ceded all the leading institutions of opinion to progressives for a half-century. Conditioned to see what they’ve been told to believe, half of our population no longer sees through the smoke and mirrors.

In contrast, the Islamists control and otherwise intimidate Egyptian society’s influential institutions by vigorously enforcing sharia’s repression of discussion and dissent. The public knows the tune is called by the likes of Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Brotherhood’s powerhouse jurist, not by Wael Ghonim and the young, tech-savvy progressives beloved of the New York Times. In Egypt, the conspiracy theories run against the progressives. The public won’t be snookered into seeing an Islamist uprising as a “democratic” upheaval. They’ll leave that to us.

The Times and the Brotherhood-smitten Obama administration won’t tell you, but Spring Fever will: The constitution was always the prize. That is why the Brothers pursued it with their signature mendacity. The story goes back to the weeks immediately after Mubarak’s fall in early 2011 — back to the most tellingly underreported and willfully misreported event in the “Arab Spring” saga: Egypt’s first-ever free election.

With the trillion-plus dollars U.S. taxpayers have expended to promote “Islamic democracy” and its companion fantasy that elections equal democracy, you’d think you might have heard a bit more about the maiden voyage in Arabia’s most important country. But no, the story barely registered. That is because the Islamists crushed the secular democrats. To grasp what happened on Thursday night, you need to understand why. That first election, zealously contested in sectarian terms, was precisely about Egypt’s future constitution.

Technically, the referendum concerned amendments to the constitution in effect during Mubarak’s reign. Despite the “Arab Spring” paeans you were hearing from Washington, Egyptian democrats knew they were weak. To have any hope of competing with the Brotherhood’s vast, long-established, highly disciplined organization, they would need time. So they argued that before parliamentary and presidential elections could take place, a new constitution should be written. That would take a while and would put voting off into the distant future. The idea was that as long as no one had been elected yet — as long as the Islamists could not claim a popular mandate — the democrats would be in a better position both to influence the content of the constitution and to buy the time necessary to build party organizations that might contest elections effectively.

The Brothers are no fools. They realized that rapidly held elections would favor them, and if they won big, they’d have a hammerlock on the constituent assembly that would write the constitution. They also grasped the disdain in which the West, under progressive regimes, holds military governments. They’d watched how their Islamist ally, Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, had leveraged American and European pressure to beat down his military — the pro-Western opposition to his anti-Western Islamic supremacism. The Brotherhood knew the U.S. and the EU would be similarly — and self-destructively — supportive of a call for quick elections that would pressure Egypt’s reigning military junta to cede authority to a “democratic” civilian government.

Consequently, the Brothers insisted that parliamentary and presidential elections could proceed promptly if the public just approved a handful of amendments to the current constitution, with a new constitution to be drafted afterwards.

As is its wont, the Brotherhood was deceitful about its intentions. To arm their Western apologists and assuage those Egyptians who might think a new government’s constitution should be in place before the new government is elected, the Brothers swore up and down that they understood constitutions are different from ordinary legislation. To be legitimate, they soothingly agreed, a nation’s fundamental law must reflect a consensus of the whole society — guaranteeing the rights of women and religious minorities. Beyond that, though, the Islamist campaign over the referendum portrayed secular democratic opponents of the amendments as “enemies of Islam” and “enemies of the revolution” who secretly supported the old regime and its Zionist allies.

When the votes were counted, it was a rout. The Brotherhood’s amendments were adopted by a margin of 78 to 22 percent. With the handwriting on the wall that the referendum would blow the cheery “Arab Spring” narrative to smithereens, the Western media ignored it. Once the numbers were in, they dismissed it. The historic vote, we were told, was just a hyper-technical matter to determine when elections would be scheduled — move along, nothing else to see here. But in fact, the amendments referendum foreshadowed today’s Islamist Winter. It exactly tracked the nearly four-to-one margin by which the Brotherhood and its Salafist allies would swamp the secular democrats in the parliamentary elections that followed.

The Brothers being the Brothers, they lied at each stage of the game. In the amendments referendum, they lied about their commitment to societal “consensus”; upon winning, they elbowed the democrats aside and infused the draft constitution with sharia principles. When they got their quick elections, they lied about how many seats they would seek in parliament, again to assuage those worried about Islamist control of the government. In going back on that commitment, they promised that they would not field a candidate for president. But once overwhelming control of parliament was secured, they reneged on that promise, too — announcing the candidacy of their charismatic leader, Khairat al-Shater.

Mind you, all of that happened before you ever heard of Mohamed Morsi. He is an afterthought: the Plan B the Brothers came up with when Shater — Morsi’s mentor and patron — was elbowed out of the race in the panicked military junta’s last gasp. While Morsi basks in the spotlight, you should know that Shater is the power behind the throne because he is the avatar of sharia. He is the author of the Brotherhood’s announced “Islamic Renaissance” plan, which the Western media continue to ignore. As Spring Fever recounts, however, here is how Shater proclaimed the Brotherhood’s objective in April 2011, right after the Islamist victory in the amendments referendum:

You all know that our main and overall mission as Muslim Brothers is to empower God’s religion on earth, to organize our life and the lives of the people on the basis of Islam, to establish the Nahda [i.e., the Renaissance] of the ummah [i.e., the notional global Muslim nation] and its civilization on the basis of Islam, and to subjugate people to God on earth.

Morsi accidentally happened into notoriety because he is a true believer and a faithful Shater servant. In fact, before Shater was excluded from presidential contention, Morsi was a constant presence at his side, introduced at rallies as an “architect” of Shater’s “Renaissance” plan. His principal task as president has been to get a new sharia constitution across the finish line.

That is why he claimed dictatorial powers last week: not to aggrandize himself further but to shield the constituent assembly from being de-commissioned by judges. Unlike Erdogan, who has ruled Turkey for a decade, Morsi has not yet been in power long enough to change the complexion of Egypt’s judiciary. It is still filled with Mubarak-era appointees and, to the extent the minority secular democrats have any toehold in Egypt, it is in the courts. So Morsi issued his “sovereign” decree, denying the judiciary any power to invalidate the draft constitution, as the non-Islamists have petitioned it to do. That means the draft constitution will be submitted to the public for an up-or-down vote.

Consistent with the Arab Spring fable to which they continue clinging, Western commentators are enthralled by the new round of Tahrir Square protests against Morsi’s power grab. But they are a pale imitation of the anti-Mubarak uprising, because the Islamists now side with the dictator. They are the zealots who gave the original Tahrir protests their fearsome edge. Morsi is not backing down, because he is doing what he was put there to do and he has little to fear. He has already faced down the remnants of Mubarak’s armed forces and replaced them with Brotherhood loyalists — a ragtag collection of Facebook malcontents does not faze him. He also knows the national referendum on the new constitution will go the same way as the original referendum on constitutional amendments: Sharia will win going away.

Deep down, the Western media know it too. Desperate to preserve its narrative about moderate, modernizing Islamists, Reuters was quick to suggest that the Brotherhood-dominated constituent assembly had not really Islamized the new constitution. Sure, it provides that “principles of sharia” are the main source of legislation, but that, the report crowed, is the same thing the Mubarak-era constitution said — the Islamists did not alter it. You are supposed to conclude from this that “principles of sharia” are not as repressive as plain old “sharia” (the formulation preferred by Salafists) would have been.

Yet, the new constitution actually goes much farther. Not only does it add provisions that make clear “principles of sharia” means “sharia”; it also installs the scholars of al-Azhar University as official expert consultants on all sharia-related matters — a longtime Morsi goal. Egypt thus becomes the Sunni version of Iran’s totalitarian regime, in which Shiite mullahs exercise ultimate authority.

And how exactly is sharia interpreted by the scholars of al-Azhar, whose alumni include such jihadist eminences as Sheikh Qaradawi and the Blind Sheikh? Not to wear you out with Spring Fever, but as it outlines (with citations to the Azhar-approved, Brotherhood-certified sharia manual, Reliance of the Traveller), they interpret it to call for: death to apostates from Islam; “charitable” contributions to those fighting jihad (expressly defined as “war against non-Muslims”); discrimination against women; discrimination against non-Muslims; death to homosexuals; death to those who spy against Muslims; death by stoning for adulterers; and so on.

It is going to be a long, cold spring.

Confirmed – The WH knew it was terror – immediately

Editor’s Note – Since last night’s revelations by CBS News and Fox News that hundreds of emails were transmitted between all administrative parties with hours and in real time, the questions are flying across the globe, across the political landscape, across the campaigns,  and the internet sphere. The denials and explanations are now coming out from the administration, but despite these excuses, it is clear that the White House Situation Room was aware – everyone was aware it was not about any silly video.

Why didn’t the President use this as a way to rally the nation around him, especially in the closing weeks of his campaign to ensure a victory? Secondly, why did they offer some excuse instead of doing what they said they did, informed the people as information emerged? Why do they still deny the utterly obvious?

At SUA, we have been reporting that the secret they are trying to keep has to do with arms being shipped from Libya to Syria and beyond. But just who was receiving those arms? The answer comes from the administration: the wrong people, the fanatics.

So the question now comes, if this is the reason for hiding and covering up, what exactly was going on? Did Ambassador Stevens know about it? Were the two SEALs working on the subject, and is this why they just happened to be in the area? Was there an operation underway the administration did not want revealed?

Also: How come the FBI never interviewed the Libyan officials? How come the FBI did not interview the February 17th Brigade?

How come the United States paid $170,000 per month for the mission post in Benghazi which does NOT include the annex and we could not ensure additional Marine support, which does not cost additional dollars since Marines are already on the payroll?

Did Joe Biden or Barack Obama ever attend PDB sessions that spelled out the Jihad ground action in Libya post Qaddafi, such that they would have demanded additional security in the country?

SUA Reports:

Fox News reported:

A series of internal State Department emails obtained by Fox News shows that officials reported within hours of last month’s deadly consulate attack in Libya that Al Qaeda-tied group Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility.

The emails provide some of the most detailed information yet about what officials knew in the initial hours after the attack. And it again raises questions about why U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, apparently based on intelligence assessments, would claim five days after the attack that it was a “spontaneous” reaction to protests over an anti-Islam film.

Ansar al-Sharia has been declared by the State Department to be an Al Qaeda-affiliated group. A member of the group suspected of participating in the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi has been arrested and is being held in Tunisia.

The emails obtained by Fox News were sent by the State Department to a variety of national security platforms, whose addresses have been redacted, including the White House Situation Room, the Pentagon, the FBI and the Director of National Intelligence. (Read the rest here from Fox News.)

A report on the time line, documents and cables are below, you decide. Here is the video of the report from CBS on the email dump and selected emails:

%CODE%

The emails:

 

See the originals at CBS News here.

Executive Summary – Brief on U.S. Embassy Massacre in Benghazi, Libya

By J.B. Williams and Tim Harrington

On September 11, 2012, the eleventh anniversary of the 9-11-01 terror attacks on the U.S., the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya was attacked resulting in the death of four U.S. Citizens, including the capture, brutal rape and murder of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.

This Executive Brief is prepared on the basis of official cable communications between the Benghazi Consulate and numerous members of the Obama Administration including Secretary of State Clinton and numerous undersecretaries, the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice and the White House.

These cable communications were sent during the time frame – September 2011 through the date of the attacks in September 2012. The cables evidence a yearlong concerted effort by U.S. officials in Benghazi to report increasing terror threats and gain additional security for the Benghazi Embassy and our foreign diplomats. Among other significant items, the documents at the foundation of this summary demonstrate the following in no uncertain terms.

  • In August of 2011 – The Obama Administration acted without congressional oversight or authority to destabilize the Middle East and topple foreign governments, in this report, Libya, interrupting all economic, agricultural and energy supply lines in the entire region and causing widespread civil unrest.
  • The unprovoked deposing of the Gadhafi government in Libya resulted in the closing of the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli and the establishment of a temporary consulate in Benghazi, which did not at any time, meet standard security protocol.
  • Following the fall of the Gadhafi government, the Obama Administration allowed known foreign terrorists from Somalia, Pakistan, Iraq and other neighboring states to enter Libya, recruit, train and deploy Al Qaeda terrorists within local militia groups, armed with both small and large shoulder-fired weapons, some supplied by the Obama Administration.
  • That the Obama administration placed the Muslim Brotherhood in control of Libya, and known terror Libyan group Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) in control of the Libyan Military and militias operating in Tripoli, which had been shut down under Gadhafi as a known affiliate of Al Qaeda.
  • That beginning in September of 2011, approximately one year before the September 2012 terrorist attacks on U.S. Embassies, officials in Benghazi started alerting Obama Administration officials that there was a rising organized terror threat targeting U.S. interests that required additional security at the Benghazi installation.
  • By March of 2012, Benghazi was requesting at least 5 more security agents. That despite numerous reports of increasing terror threats and pleas for additional security at the Benghazi compound, the Obama Administration not only refused any additional security, they reduced security at the Benghazi installation. Warnings of organized terror threats had become critical, supported by U.S. Intelligence by June and July 2012.
  • By June and July of 2012, pleas for additional security under a deteriorating situation on the ground in Libya had become shrill. Yet, the Benghazi compound was left to rely only upon local Libyan militia groups for compound security. The same militia groups that included members of known terror organizations, specifically including Islamic Maghreb and Al Qaeda operatives, as reported to the Obama Administration by consulate officials on numerous occasions
  • By August 2012, the situation had become critical, causing Ambassador Chris Stevens to issue yet another plea for immediate increased security to protect American diplomats in Benghazi, which was once again ignored by the Obama White House and State Department. Benghazi officials started copying numerous Obama agencies in on the cables, in search of someone who would listen.
  • On September 4, 2012, seven days before the deadly attacks on the Benghazi consulate, Ambassador Stevens issued a “MAXIMUM ALERT” to ALL Obama Administration agencies concerning the imminent threat of terror attacks coming from inside the new Libyan government, military, police and the same militia groups they were forced to rely upon for consulate security.
  • The Obama Administration had been warned for twelve months in advance that the situation in Libya was deteriorating to the degree that those officials in Benghazi no longer felt safe and desperately needed additional security. Pleas that Obama officials denied repeatedly all the way up to days before the attacks.
  • The cables demonstrate that the Obama Administration knew that there was an increasing threat, that it was an organized terrorists threat, that it was planned in advance, that it was well funded and armed in part by the U.S. State Department, that the consulate was a “sitting duck” with inadequate security falling well below standard security protocol and that the events of September 2012 had absolutely nothing to do with an obscure YouTube video.
  • That the Obama Administration failed to react to repeated warnings all the way up to the day of the attacks, and that even as those cables were pouring into administration officials begging for help, administration officials were knowingly creating a cover story concerning an obscure YouTube video in an effort to escape responsibility for the deaths of American officials.
  • On the day of the 2012 Embassy attacks, additional warnings were pouring in from installations in Tripoli and other places, while Ambassador Stevens was being beaten, raped, murdered and dragged through the streets of Libya.
  • The cables prove that the Obama Administration is directly and criminally responsible for the events that unfolded on the eleventh anniversary of 9-11-01 – and that they took specific actions to leave the Benghazi consulate vulnerable, and then created a cover story in an effort to escape administrative responsibility.
  • The Administration allowed two weeks to pass following the attacks, along with the degrading of physical evidence before putting the F.B.I. on the ground in Benghazi to investigate, during which time administration officials continued to tell the American people a known lie, that the attacks were “not terror related” – “were not planned” – “were not organized” and “were the result of an obscure YouTube video” when in fact, it was a highly predictable outcome to official administration policies and decisions.
  • 63 DS agents were deployed to cover the Pan American games during the same time frame that Benghazi officials were requesting 5 more agents and denied more than 2 DS agents to protect a 13 acre compound in the middle of Obama’s Middle East meltdown
  • That despite administration claims of limited State Department funding, the State Department was operating with the largest budget in history and resources were simply being used for political purposes rather than the safety and security of our foreign diplomats.
  • On September 4, 2012, a final plea for immediate additional security at Benghazi was sent to State Secretary Clinton, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Energy, Homeland Security, the F.B.I, the C.I.A., Arab Israel Collective, the Department of Commerce, Africom and the African Union Collective. Benghazi officials had become desperate to get help from somewhere. Stevens was killed seven days later.
  • Ambassador Stevens, along with three fellow U.S. officials in Benghazi died a brutal death as a direct result of Obama administration policies and decisions and that the administration continues a cover up effort even today.

The cables used to evidence these facts include more than a hundred pages of cable communications between Benghazi and Obama Administration officials. These cables demonstrate that there was no confusion over what was happening in Libya leading up to and including the attacks of September 2012, and no “fog of war” concerning the nature of the attacks that Benghazi officials had tried for months to warn the Obama administration about.

All Obama officials knew full well that the events of September 2012 were organized and planned, terrorist assaults on U.S. Embassies in Benghazi and beyond, having nothing whatsoever to do with an obscure YouTube video. Still, the bold faced lies continue from Obama administration officials.

The Washington Times is reporting that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the 55-year-old filmmaker responsible for the anti-Muslim video that President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice initially and wrongly blamed for inciting the deadly terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, is still being held at the Los Angeles Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) without bond.

His first court appearance is scheduled for three days after the 2012 election. Despite recent acknowledgements by the Obama administration, that the YouTube film had nothing to do with September 2012 events, the filmmaker remains silenced without bond by Obama administration officials, until after the November 6th election.

Overview and Conclusions

In final analysis of the facts presented in the cables between Benghazi and Obama administration officials, one can safely conclude that the events of September 11, 2012 were entirely predictable and avoidable.

The Obama administration acted beyond its authority, without congressional advice or consent and in violation of the War Powers Act, in unilaterally attacking the foreign sovereign nation of Libya and deposing the Libyan government without any provocation.

In doing so, they destabilized an entire region of the world known as a hotbed of terrorists organizations and anti-Western sentiment, elevating known terror organization the Muslim Brotherhood into control of numerous Middle Eastern states, interrupting economic, energy and agricultural supply lines igniting unrest across the region.

The Obama administration left our foreign embassies unguarded as “sitting ducks” as repeated reports of increasing violence and threat poured in over and over again, from across the Middle East and in particular, Benghazi.

In the end, the Obama administration had become the world’s greatest supporter of Islamic Terror operations, toppling sovereign governments in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Lebanon and Pakistan. The region is HOT with numerous terror organizations and Al Qaeda in particular has reconstituted full operations in all of these states and beyond.

Officials in Benghazi had gone out of their way for twelve months, especially during the weeks leading up to the attacks, to advise Obama officials of increased destabilization in the region, resulting in increasing organized terror threats to U.S. interests in Libya and beyond.

Obama officials had advance knowledge that terror attacks were imminent and did nothing to protect American diplomats and employees. Obama administration officials failed to properly respond to those reports of increased threat by increasing location security or removing U.S. officials from danger.

The death and destruction was entirely avoidable. There was no failure of intelligence or on the ground reporting. There was no “fog of war” in trying to understand the events of September 2012, after months of warnings from Benghazi officials.

Further, the administration was fully aware of the true nature of these attacks and chose to mislead the American people by advancing a cover story regarding an obscure YouTube film, while failing to put F.B.I. investigators on the ground for two weeks following the attacks.

The Obama administration has arrested and detained the YouTube filmmaker without just cause and continues to silence the filmmaker until after the 2012 election. Administration officials remain on-record repeating false statements regarding these events as of today.

The cables at the center of this brief provide evidence of massive incompetence at a minimum. They may in fact evidence criminal wrong-doing that could rise to the level of treason against American interests here and abroad.

This summary brief was prepared for the sole purpose of making public, the truth about Obama Foreign Policy and decision making and the deadly consequences that followed in Benghazi.

Readers of this summary are encouraged to read the subject cables and draw their own conclusions. This is not how America should do business around the world. It is certainly no way to protect the men and women of our diplomatic corps, who risk their lives to advance freedom and liberty abroad and provide for a peaceful and stable world.

  • Here are the many documents that support this report. This was all released just prior to the email dump. DEI-to-BHO-10-19-2012-attachments
  • Additionally, here are the cables:

%CODE2%

If Dubai fears the MB – why are we inviting them here?

Editor’s Note – It seems every nation in the Middle East is getting more nervous by the moment. From Israel to Lebanon, from Syria to Bahrain and Dubai. What is clear is that one major player is one of the keys to all the nerves fraying – the Muslim Brotherhood, the same folks the White House is courting, and who has infiltrated our highest leadership advisory positions.

If Dubai fears the MB – why are we inviting them here?

Dubai police chief warns of Muslim Brotherhood, Iran threat

Reuters/Yahoo

DUBAI (Reuters) – Dubai’s chief of police has warned of an “international plot” to overthrow the governments of Gulf Arab countries, saying the region needs to be prepared to counter any threat from Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers as well as Syria and Iran.

Chief of Dubai Police Dahi Khalfan

The comments from Dahi Khalfan, one of the most outspoken security officials in the United Arab Emirates, follow the detention in the UAE since April of at least 20 dissidents, according to relatives of the detainees and activists.

“There’s an international plot against Gulf states in particular andArab countries in general… This is pre-planned to take over our fortunes,” Khalfan told reporters at a gathering late on Wednesday marking the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

“The bigger our sovereign wealth funds and the more money we put in the banks of Western countries, the bigger the plot to take over our countries… The Brothers and their governments in Damascus and North Africa have to know that the Gulf is a red line, not only for Iran but also for the Brothers as well.”

Mahmoud Ghozlan, spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, dismissed the accusation, saying the remarks did not deserve a reaction. Ghozlan was involved in a row with the UAE earlier this year when Khalfan also accused the Brotherhood of trying to sow discord in the UAE.

“I promised myself to pay no attention to this man or to comment on everything he has to say,” said Ghozlan, whose movement won Egypt’s presidential election in June.

Most of the detainees since April are Islamists, targeted by an official clampdown amid concern they may be emboldened by the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in other Arab countries such as Egypt.

The UAE, a federation of seven emirates and a major oil exporter, allows no organized political opposition. It has avoided the political unrest that has toppled four Arab heads of state since last year thanks in part to its cradle-to-grave welfare system.

But it has also moved swiftly against dissidents, and last year stripped citizenship from Islamists whom it deemed a security threat and jailed activists who called for more power for a semi-elected advisory council.

Analysts say Islamists are aiming to tap into unease among the UAE’s largely conservative citizens at having become a minority in their own country, most of whose 8 million people are foreign workers.

The economic boom in Abu Dhabi and Dubai has given the UAE an average per capita annual income of $48,000, but has also brought what some see as unwelcome Western influence.

Islamists in the UAE say they share similar ideology with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt but have no direct links with the group, seen as a mentor for Islamist groups in the region.

They say they want more civil rights and greater power for the Federal National Council, a quasi-parliamentary body that advises the government but has no legislative power.

UAE Interior Ministry officials have not been available to comment on the arrests. Last week, UAE officials announced that authorities were investigating a foreign-linked group planning “crimes against the security of the state”.

“I had no idea that there is this large number of Muslim Brotherhood in the Gulf states. We have to be alert and on guard because the wider these groups become, the higher probability there is for trouble,” Khalfan said on Wednesday.

“We are aware that there are groups plotting to overthrow Gulf governments in the long term.”

(Reporting by Mirna Sleiman in Dubai and Tom Perry in Cairo; Writing by Andrew Torchia; Editing by Louise Ireland)

Abedin served with Naseef on board of Muslim charity

Editor’s Note – With Republicans and Democrats assailing Michelle Bachmann and others over the Muslim Brotherhood, one wonders why. Andrew McCarthy wrote a great article that shows the facts, and supports Bachmann posted here. To back up his work, yet more proof comes from WND’s Aaron Klein here:

HILLARY’S CHIEF WORKED WITH AL-QAIDA FRONT MAN

Huma Abedin at center of Capitol Hill Storm over Muslim Brotherhood

By Aaron Klein – WND

Hillary Clinton’s chief-of-staff, Huma Abedin, worked on the editorial board of a Saudi-financed Islamic think tank alongside a Muslim extremist accused of financing al-Qaida fronts.

Huma Abedin and Hillary Clinton

The extremist, Abdullah Omar Naseef, is deeply connected to the Abedin family.

Naseef is secretary-general of the Muslim World League, an Islamic charity known to have spawned terrorist groups, including one declared by the U.S. government to be an official al-Qaida front.

Democrat and Republican lawmakers have rallied to Huma Abedin’s defense since five GOP Congress members, led by Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, sent letters to the inspector generals at the departments of Homeland Security, Justice and State asking that they investigate Muslim Brotherhood influence on U.S. government officials.

The lawmakers noted Huma Abedin “has three family members – her late father, mother and her brother – connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations. Her position affords her routine access to the secretary and to policymaking.”

Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner, who admitted he hadn’t read the letters, defended Abedin, and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., called the accusations “sinister” and “nothing less than an unwarranted and unfounded attack on an honorable woman, a dedicated American and a loyal public servant.”

WND was first to report Huma’s mother, Saleha Abedin, was the official representative of Naseef’s terror-stained Muslim World League in the 1990s.

Also, Huma’s father, Professor Syed Abedin, was the founder of the Institute for Minority Affairs, a Saudi group that reportedly had the quiet, but active, support of Naseef.

Saleha is currently the editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, the publication of Syed’s Institute.

The institute bills itself as “the only scholarly institution dedicated to the systematic study of Muslim communities in non-Muslim societies around the world.”

Now it has emerged that Huma served on the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs’s editorial board from 2002 to 2008.

Documents obtained by author Walid Shoebat reveal that Naseef served on the board with Huma from at least December 2002 to December 2003.

Abdullah Omar Naseef

Naseef’s sudden departure from the board in December 2003 coincides with the time at which various charities led by Naseef’s Muslim World League were declared illegal terrorism fronts worldwide, including by the U.S. and U.N.

The MWL, founded in Mecca in 1962, bills itself as one of the largest Islamic non-governmental organizations.

But according to U.S. government documents and testimony from the charity’s own officials, it is heavily financed by the Saudi government.

The MWL has been accused of terrorist ties, as have its various offshoots, including the International Islamic Relief Organization, or IIRO, and Al Haramain, which was declared by the U.S. and U.N. as a terror financing front.

Indeed, the Treasury Department, in a September 2004 press release, alleged Al Haramain had “direct links” with Osama bin Laden. The group is now banned worldwide by United Nations Security Council Committee 1267.

There long have been accusations that the IIRO and MWL also repeatedly funded al-Qaida.

In 1993, bin Laden reportedly told an associate that the MWL was one of his three most important charity fronts.

An Anti-Defamation League profile of the MWL accuses the group of promulgating a “fundamentalist interpretation of Islam around the world through a large network of charities and affiliated organizations.”

“Its ideological backbone is based on an extremist interpretation of Islam,” the profile states, “and several of its affiliated groups and individuals have been linked to terror-related activity.”

In 2003, U.S. News and World Report documented that accompanying the MWL’s donations, invariably, are “a blizzard of Wahhabist literature.”

“Critics argue that Wahhabism’s more extreme preachings – mistrust of infidels, branding of rival sects as apostates and emphasis on violent jihad –laid the groundwork for terrorist groups around the world,” the report continued.

An Egyptian-American cab driver, Ihab Mohamed Ali Nawawi, was arrested in Florida in 1990 on accusations he was an al-Qaida sleeper agent and a former personal pilot to bin Laden. At the time he was accused of serving bin Laden, he also reportedly worked for the Pakistani branch of the MWL.

The MWL in 1988 founded the Al Haramain Islamic Foundation, developing chapters in about 50 countries, including for a time in Oregon until it was designated a terrorist organization.

In the early 1990s, evidence began to grow that the foundation was funding Islamist militants in Somalia and Bosnia, and a 1996 CIA report detailed its Bosnian militant ties.

The U.S. Treasury designated Al Haramain’s offices in Kenya and Tanzania as sponsors of terrorism for their role in planning and funding the 1998 bombings of two American embassies in East Africa. The Comoros Islands office was also designated because it “was used as a staging area and exfiltration route for the perpetrators of the 1998 bombings.”

The New York Times reported in 2003 that Al Haramain had provided funds to the Indonesian terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah, which was responsible for the 2002 Bali bombings that killed 202 people. The Indonesia office was later designated a terrorist entity by the Treasury.

In February 2004, the U.S. Treasury Department froze all Al Haramain’s financial assets pending an investigation, leading the Saudi government to disband the charity and fold it into another group, the Saudi National Commission for Relief and Charity Work Abroad.

In September 2004, the U.S. designated Al-Haramain a terrorist organization.

In June 2008, the Treasury Department applied the terrorist designation to the entire Al-Haramain organization worldwide

Bin Laden’s brother-in-law

In August 2006, the Treasury Department also designated the Philippine and Indonesian branch offices of the MWL-founded IIRO as terrorist entities “for facilitating fundraising for al-Qaida and affiliated terrorist groups.”

The Treasury Department added: “Abd Al Hamid Sulaiman Al-Mujil, a high-ranking IIRO official [executive director of its Eastern Province Branch] in Saudi Arabia, has used his position to bankroll the al-Qaida network in Southeast Asia. Al-Mujil has a long record of supporting Islamic militant groups, and he has maintained a cell of regular financial donors in the Middle East who support extremist causes.”

In the 1980s, Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, Osama bin Laden’s brother-in-law, ran the Philippines offices of the IIRO. Khalifa has been linked to Manila-based plots to target the pope and U.S. airlines.

The IIRO has also been accused of funding Hamas, Algerian radicals, Afghanistan militant bases and the Egyptian terror group Al-Gamaa al-Islamiyya.

The New York Post reported the families of the 9/11 victims filed a lawsuit against IIRO and other Muslim organizations for having “played key roles in laundering of funds to the terrorists in the 1998 African embassy bombings” and for having been involved in the “financing and ‘aiding and abetting’ of terrorists in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.”

‘Saudi government front’

In a court case in Canada, Arafat El-Asahi, the Canadian director of both the IIRO and the MWL, admitted the charities are near entities of the Saudi government.

Stated El-Asahi: “The Muslim World League, which is the mother of IIRO, is a fully government-funded organization. In other words, I work for the government of Saudi Arabia. I am an employee of that government.

“Second, the IIRO is the relief branch of that organization, which means that we are controlled in all our activities and plans by the government of Saudi Arabia. Keep that in mind, please,” he said.

Despite its offshoots being implicated in terror financing, the U.S. government never designated the MWL itself as a terror-financing charity. Many have speculated the U.S. has been trying to not embarrass the Saudi government.

Huma’s mother represented Muslim World League

Saleha Abedin has been quoted in numerous press accounts as both representing the MWL and serving as a delegate for the charity.

In 1995, for example, the Washington Times reported on a United Nations-arranged women’s conference in Beijing that called on governments throughout the world to give women statistical equality with men in the workplace.

The report quoted Saleha Abedin, who attended the conference as a delegate, as “also representing the Muslim World League based in Saudi Arabia and the Muslim NGO Caucus.”

The U.N.’s website references a report in the run-up to the Beijing conference that also lists Abedin as representing the MWL at the event.

The website posted an article from the now defunct United States Information Agency quoting Abedin and reporting she attended the Beijing conference as “a delegate of the Muslim World League and member of the Muslim Women’s NGO caucus.”

In the article, Abedin was listed under a shorter name, “Dr. Saleha Mahmoud, director of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs.”

WND has confirmed the individual listed is Huma Abedin’s mother. The reports misspelled part of Abedin’s name. Her full professional name is at times listed as Saleha Mahmood Abedin S.

Tied to Egypt’s new Muslim Brotherhood president

Last month, Shoebat reported that while she acted as one of 63 leaders of the Muslim Sisterhood, the de facto female version of the Muslim Brotherhood, Saleha Abedin served alongside Najla Ali Mahmoud, the wife of Mohammed Mursi, Egypt’s new president.

Clinton met with Mursi earlier this month.

Saleha Abedin and Mursi’s wife both were members of the Sisterhood’s Guidance Bureau, Shoebat found.

Hillary praise

Saleha Mahmood Abedin is an associate professor of sociology at Dar Al-Hekma College in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, which she helped to create. She formerly directed the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs in the U.K. and served as a delegate for the Muslim World League, an Islamic fundamentalist group Osama bin Laden reportedly told an associate was one of his most important charity fronts.

In February 2010, Clinton spoke at Abedin’s college, where she was first introduced by Abedin and then praised the work of the terror-tied professor:

“I have to say a special word about Dr. Saleha Abedin,” Clinton said. “You heard her present the very exciting partnerships that have been pioneered between colleges and universities in the United States and this college. And it is pioneering work to create these kinds of relationships.

“But I have to confess something that Dr. Abedin did not,” Clinton continued, “and that is that I have almost a familial bond with this college. Dr. Abedin’s daughter, one of her three daughters, is my deputy chief of staff, Huma Abedin, who started to work for me when she was a student at George Washington University in Washington, D.C.”

With additional research by Brenda J. Elliott

Muslim Brotherhood in the US – Another Holder Scandal

Editor’s Note – Where does it end? ….wait, where did it begin? Cloward/Piven – Overwhelm, and Muslim roots? Now, its Eric Holder again. Another scandal – he wont release information on the infiltration by the Muslim Brotherhood in America and our government to Congress as well. WHY?

The Muslim Brotherhood is here to stay, if the Obama administration has anything to say about it, and they have! They invite terrorists to the White House, they consulted hundreds of times with them overseas and at home, and they have infiltrated every level of government, military, and institutions across the land.

Mohamed Morsy waves to his supporters after Friday prayers in Cairo in this June 22, 2012 file photo. REUTERS/Suhaib Salem/Files

The OTHER Eric Holder Scandal

by Ryan Mauro – Family Security Matters and Institute on Religion and Democracy

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is in the spotlight after the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted to hold him in contempt because he is refusing to provide documents related to the Fast and the Furious scandal. But there’s another scandal you should know about. For over one year, he has refused to hand over documents about the Muslim Brotherhood network in the U.S.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), vice chairman of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, confronted Holder about the matter on Thursday, June 21. Rep. Gohmert wants Congress to have access to documents from the trial of the Holy Land Foundation, the largest terrorism financing trial in U.S. history. Five Foundation officials were found guilty of funding Hamas and evidence introduced by the federal government shows it was set up by the Muslim Brotherhood’s secret “Palestine Committee” in the U.S.

Three prominent Muslim-American organizations were labeled by the federal government as “unindicted co-conspirators” in the trial-the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT). The documents requested by Rep. Gohmert for the past year were provided to the Holy Land Foundation’s defense team, yet are being denied to Congress.

“They are terrorists, and we wanted the documents you gave to the terrorists. We are a year later, and we still don’t have them,” complained Rep. Gohmert. Holder replied that he’d only provide what is already available publicly.

Rep. Gohmert is one of five members of Congress requesting investigations into the influence of Muslim Brotherhood-tied organizations and individuals in the U.S. government. As I reviewed here, this influence is far-reaching. It is very possible that the documents from the Holy Land trial would be embarrassing to many government officials, not to mention businesses and interfaith groups that have embraced Brotherhood entities. At the very least, they could provide further justification for the labeling of CAIR, ISNA and NAIT as “unindicted co-conspirators.”

The documents were originally requested on April 27, 2011 after reporter Patrick Poole broke the blockbuster story at Pajamas Media that Justice Department political appointees blocked the prosecution of one CAIR co-founder and, according to his high-level Justice Department source, other groups and individuals listed as “unindicted co-conspirators.”

Poole learned that Assistant Attorney General David Kris wrote a memo dated March 31, 2010 titled, “Declination of Prosecution of Omar Ahmad,” an individual who was present at a Muslim Brotherhood meeting in Philadelphia in 1993 to discuss how to support Hamas. The idea to create a new group was put forward at this meeting and Ahmad co-founded CAIR the next year. Ahmad was also personally listed as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the Holy Land trial. The given reason to drop the prosecution was potential jury nullification but the source is certain that it was a political decision.

According to Poole’s source, “It was always the plan to initially go after the [HLF] leaders first and then go after the rest of the accomplices in a second round of prosecutions.” The original trial resulted in a mistrial, pushing back the planned prosecutions. The Obama Administration then came into office and they were stopped.

After the report broke, the Administration claimed that its predecessor had decided not to indict CAIR in 2004. Poole explains that this is true but it was because “They decided to get the bigger fish after they convicted the smaller fish.” Rep. Peter King confirmed that FBI officials and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Texas, which prosecuted the Holy Land Foundation, were ready to begin the second round of prosecutions and were outraged at how the political appointees stopped them.

Congressional sources later told Poole that Assistant Attorney General David Kris also dropped the prosecution of several officials involved with the International Institute of Islamic Thought, a Muslim Brotherhood front, and the SAAR Foundation/SAFA Group, which has disbanded since the federal government raided their offices. They were to be prosecuted on charges related to tax evasion and money laundering because Sami al-Arian, a Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader in the U.S., refused to testify and reveal their terrorist connections.

Poole reported that one of these protected officials is Jamal Barzinji. In October 2011, former Virginia Governor and current Democratic Senate candidate Tim Kaine spoke at an event honoring Barzinji. His ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas are very well-documented. FBI documents all the way back from 1987-1988 identify him as a Brotherhood operative. He is also a founder of the radical Dar al-Hijrah mosque, which Treasury Department records say “is a mosque operating as a front for Hamas operatives in the U.S.”

Rep. Gohmert slammed Holder for not prosecuting these groups and individuals when there is a “mountain of evidence” against them. He further revealed that “at least one of which now says it is working inside your [Holder’s] agency to help advise on the purge of counter-terrorism training materials.”

The role of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) has already been discovered. MPAC was founded by Brotherhood ideologues and works in tandem with the aforementioned groups, but was not labeled as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the Holy Land trial. Rep. Gohmert was apparently referring to  CAIR, ISNA or NAIT.

On February 8, ISNA was part of an interfaith group that met with the FBI Director about the training materials. A FBI spokesperson said the agency would consider a proposal from the group to create a committee to review the materials. More recently, the White House’s new Director for Community Partnerships, George Selim, said that “There is [sic] hundreds of examples of departments and agencies that meet with CAIR on a range of issues.”

Fast and the Furious isn’t the only controversy Holder is refusing to show documents about, but it’s probably the only one you’re hearing about.

This article was sponsored by the Institute on Religion and Democracy.