Thursday, August 2, 2012


GOP Leaders Ignorant of Muslim Brotherhood's American Influence

Over at Breitbart today, John Guandolo exposes the dangerous willful ignorance of McCain, Boehner, and the others who have criticized Michele Bachmann for calling for an investigation of Muslim Brotherhood influence in government:

In letters dated June 13, 2012, five Members of Congress – Representatives Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Tom Rooney (R-FL), Trent Franks (R-AZ), and Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) -- requested that Inspector Generals from the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Justice and State, as well as the IG from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, investigate the penetration of senior Muslim Brotherhood operatives into our national security decision-making apparatus in America. 

This is a reasonable request, since a massive amount of factual evidence exists which specifically identifies individuals and organizations which are a part of the Muslim Brotherhood Movement in America directly involved in key positions inside our security agencies. 

Yet, American political leaders from both parties continue to disparage this request in personal terms, giving clear indication they are completely ignorant of the facts in this matter. The latest blast came from leaders in the GOP, publicly defending a senior advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff to the U.S. Secretary of State, Huma Abedin. This individual's immediate family founded a Muslim Brotherhood front group which, at a minimum, raises questions about Abedin’s position inside the government. If her parents were in leadership positions in organizations the U.S. government knew were fronts for the KGB or Chinese Intelligence, we would not be having this discussion. But because it is the Muslim Brotherhood, which many American leaders have either coddled, worked with, or ignored, these five Members of Congress who are abiding by their oaths of office and asking for a legitimate investigation into this potentially damaging espionage issue, are being attacked by Senator McCain and Speaker Boehner. Shoot the messenger.  

As a point of reference, three years ago Congresswoman Sue Myrick (R-NC) called on the Department of Justice to brief all members of Congress on the implications of the US v. Holy Land Foundation trial, which revealed many of the prominent Islamic organization in America today, including the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), are a part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Jihad here. DOJ never fulfilled this request.

Speaker Boehner said in defense of Abedin, “From everything that I do know of her, she has a sterling character. Accusations like this being thrown around are pretty dangerous.” What is actually dangerous is that the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives remains so grossly ignorant about a threat inside our nation nearly eleven years after 9/11.  

For his part, Senator McCain came to Abedin’s aide by saying that the comments made about her “rest solely on a few unspecified and unsubstantiated associations of members of Huma's family." This necessarily means that Mr. McCain did no study at all of the facts of the matter, because they clearly and specifically reveal the organizations in which her parents and family are involved and their ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. He also criticized the Congressional letter for lacking any “instance of an action, a decision or a public position that Huma has taken while at the State Department or as a member of then-Sen. Clinton's staff that would lend credence to the charge that she is promoting anti-American activities within our government." This will require a lengthier retort.

Are Senator McCain and Speaker Boehner aware of the following facts?
  • The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) is the largest Muslim Brotherhood (MB) organization in North America, created to be the “nucleus” for the Islamic Movement, according to MB documents seized by the FBI in Annandale, Virginia in 2004.
  • Because of the evidence ISNA is a Brotherhood front, as well as the numerous financial documents detailing money going directly from ISNA and their banks to Hamas entities overseas, ISNA is an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in U.S. history (US v. Holy Land Foundation), which was adjudicated in 2008 in Dallas, Texas.
  • When ISNA filed a motion with the federal court to have their name removed from the unindicted co-conspirator list, the government stated that ISNA exists to be a financial support entity for Hamas. The federal judge agreed stating the government provided “ample evidence” and left ISNA on the list. A three-judge appellate panel unanimously agreed and left ISNA on the unindicted co-conspirator list.
  • ISNA’s two key directors and its President, Mohamed Magid (pictured above), all work with Secretary Clinton and her office. So, the leaders of a Hamas-supporting entity are advising the U.S. Secretary of State.
Huma Abedin is an adviser and Deputy Chief of Staff to the U.S. Secretary of State. She supports the Secretary’s work with ISNA. If Abedin is not aware ISNA is a Hamas support entity, she is incompetent at her job and should be relieved of her duties. If she is aware ISNA is a Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas entity and is not making the Secretary and the other staff aware of this, there is a much greater problem. Since Abedin’s parents co-founded the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs with backing from the Muslim Brotherhood’s Muslim World League, questions about her loyalty and affiliations are not only proper; they are required as a matter of policy for such a position in our government.

Are Mr. McCain and Speaker Boehner aware that Secretary Clinton’s official position on the so-called “Arab Spring” was that it was a freedom movement led by students who organized on Twitter? How could the U.S. Secretary of State refer to the Muslim Brotherhood’s revolution in the Middle East this way? How could she get this so catastrophically wrong? Perhaps the influence exerted by the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Hamas-supporting entity ISNA has something to do with it.

Are Senator McCain and Speaker Boehner aware that ISNA President Mohamed Magid spoke at a Counter-Terrorism training program at CIA Headquarters at Langley last week? Or that ISNA advised Senator Richard Durbin’s Senate committee before his hearings in the summer of 2011? Or that Mohamed Magid was at the last two Iftar Dinners at the White House? Is the Secret Service aware that the leader of a Hamas support entity has been coming into the White House? Or that Mohamed Magid has worked with the National Security Council and sits on the Department of Homeland Security’s Advisory Committee? Are the American people aware that the very agencies legally charged to support and defend the Constitution and this nation are working with the leader of a known Hamas-supporting entity? And ISNA/Magid are only one example of this massive security breach into our system by the Muslim Brotherhood.

There is ample reason for a significant investigation into the penetration of the U.S. government, since one of the Muslim Brotherhood’s most senior leaders has access to our most sensitive intelligence agencies. Perhaps Senator McCain and Speaker Boehner will come out and publicly apologize to Congresswoman Bachmann and the other courageous members of Congress, then share the same outrage they showed these same Congressman by exposing the Muslim Brotherhood’s penetration into our national security apparatus.

That would be a step in the right direction.

For Palestinians, Don't Blame Culture 

By: Steve Chapman  /

For Palestinians, Don't Blame Culture
If you see an economy burdened with the heavy hand of bureaucrats, suffocating controls and arbitrary delays, you can assume it will grow slowly or not at all. You can also expect that Republicans, with ample justification, will blame the government for stifling productive activity.

But Mitt Romney can surprise you. Speaking in Jerusalem, he noted how much richer Israel is than "the areas managed by the Palestinian Authority," and he fingered a different cause. "Culture makes all the difference," he said.

Romney is not the first person to compare and explain Israel's economic performance over time with other places. The immortal economist Milton Friedman -- who would have been 100 years old this week -- did so back in the 1990s. But he wasn't complimenting the Israelis, and he didn't ascribe the difference to culture. He blamed it on bad government.

His comparison was between Israel and Hong Kong: two small places that after World War II were inundated by refugees who, as he put it, were "reputed to be intelligent and commercially able." Israel had more land and superior natural resources, Friedman noted, "yet from 1960 to 1996, its average per capita income went from 60 percent more than Hong Kong's to 40 percent less."

How come? Not, as you might think, because of Israel's higher defense costs, which he noted were financed mostly by foreign governments and contributions from Jews elsewhere. The key factor, he wrote, was that Hong Kong's government never spent more than 15 percent of its national income, while "government spending in Israel was at times close to 100 percent of national income."

Government budgets were not the only factor. Israel's economy was built on an old-fashioned socialist model, while Hong Kong practiced laissez-faire.

Israel has moved away from socialism in recent years, but the gap persists. Today, the CIA says, per capita income in Hong Kong is nearly $50,000 a year, compared to $31,400 in Israel. It's hard to pin the gap on culture: In the United States, after all, Jews and Chinese-Americans both enjoy higher than average incomes. Friedman's analysis makes more sense.

It also applies to the Palestinians' plight. When Romney referred to "the areas managed by the Palestinian Authority," he skipped over the fact that these areas are under substantial Israeli control -- and have been for decades. He also ignored the ways in which that control has strangled the Palestinians' material progress.

The 2012 CIA World Factbook says, "Israeli closure policies continue to disrupt labor and trade flows, industrial capacity and basic commerce, eroding the productive capacity of the West Bank economy."

Writes Bernard Avishai, a business professor at Hebrew University, "Try growing a supermarket chain when your just-in-time logistics system has to deal with 600 roadblocks." These are just part of what Palestinian entrepreneurs have to overcome.

Israelis, and Romney, may say all this is entirely the fault of the Palestinians for not making peace. But that's a separate issue. Given the many obstacles that have been erected, blaming the Palestinian culture is a stretch. Even the most business-friendly culture can't create prosperity where governments won't let it.

Hong Kong, again, offers proof. Culturally, it was similar to the rest of China. But under communist dictator Mao Zedong, the people of China endured catastrophic famines and economic chaos -- while those in Hong Kong, blessed with a free-market framework, ascended to prosperity.

It's not just Hong Kong that has surpassed Israel. Ireland, once considerably poorer, now has a far higher per capita income. The Irish, it's fair to say, were not previously famous for their go-getting capitalist fervor.

Attributing the Palestinian stagnation to a malignant culture breeds a dangerous complacency by suggesting Israel has no capacity to help. It casts a bad light on all Palestinians, including the ambitious and hardworking. It encourages the smug assumption that some fatal flaw in Arabs or Muslims dooms their countries to failure.

It should be obvious that without economic freedom, we'll never know what they can do. Recognizing the crucial role that official policies play, however, puts the onus on the Israeli government to find ways to liberate the Palestinian economy without sacrificing security.

In assessing the dismal performance of the U.S. economy over the past three and a half years, Romney does not mind informing Americans that policy, not culture, is the problem. Why not let Israelis in on the secret?

The Democratic Party Fascists Take Over  

By: Ben Shapiro  / Townhall Daily

The Democratic Party Fascists Take Over
Let's say that you own a business. And let's say that as a person of faith, you decide to use the profits from that business to support, at least in some small part, traditional marriage. Now let's say that your political opponents find your position stunning and launch a boycott against your business. 
So far, no harm, no foul. It may be irritating that your political opponents choose to make your personal political predilections the basis of a crushing economic attack. But it's their right. 
But now let's say your political opponents are in government. And let's say they use the power of their office to shut down your business -- not because you violated any law or broke any regulation, but because they don't like your position on traditional marriage.
This would be fascism.
Fascists deny that democracy should decide whether or not you have a right to engage in business. They suggest, instead, that political actors, armed with a vague sense of the general will, ought to enforce that vague sense rather than the law. Mao Zedong fervently supported this notion; in his "Little Red Book," he asked where "correct ideas come from." His answer: him. And only politically correct ideas could be tolerated.
Welcome to Barack Obama's America. 
Two of Obama's closest political allies, Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston and Mayor Rahm Emanuel of Chicago, came out last week in favor of banning Chick-fil-A from their cities. Chick-fil-A's President and Chief Operating Officer, Dan Cathy, is a supporter of traditional marriage; the company has given money to groups that support traditional marriage politically. This, in the minds of Menino and Emanuel, is a grave sin in need of rapid repentance. "Chick-fil-A's values are not Chicago's values," said Emanuel of a city in which dead people vote and live people dodge bullets. "I was angry to learn on the heels of your prejudiced statements about your search for a site to locate in Boston," Menino wrote to Cathy. "There is no place for your discrimination on Boston's Freedom Trail and no place for your company alongside it." 

Now, neither Emanuel nor Menino can legally bar Chick-fil-A from their cities. But this attitude -- that businesses are worthy of government bans simply for failing to tow the liberal line -- now infuses the Democratic Party. It's why President Obama's allies at Media Matters consistently team up with him to launch devastating boycotts against conservative business people. It's why those public relations assaults are invariably well coordinated with government actors who suggest that force of law be used to punish those conservative business people.

This is the difference between free speech and fascism. It's one thing for people to choose not to engage in business with people with whom they disagree. That's often nasty and extreme, but it's certainly within First Amendment territory. It's another thing entirely for the government to step in to punish people who disagree with liberal policies, simply because they disagree with liberal policies. That's fascistic. It's deeply dangerous. And it's becoming the ugly new attitude of the Democratic Party elite.
Rubio Ethics Charges: Where There's Smoke...There's No Fire

By DICK MORRIS Published on

The phone lines around Romney Headquarters are buzzing with worried campaign operatives wondering if Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), the obvious front runner for vice president, should be dropped from consideration because of ethical issues that may surface should he run.
So I looked into them and called the reporter who's been covering them.  Here's the story:

The two big worries about Rubio appear to be non-starters.  He has been very close to two men who are in a lot of trouble, but there is no evidence that any of it has rubbed off on him.

Former Florida House Speaker Ray Sansom, who Rubio -- his predecessor as Speaker -- hand-picked to be the House's budget chairman, has been convicted in a corruption probe.  But, other than bad judgment in trusting him, it doesn't seem to involve Rubio.
Marco's other close friend -- Florida Republican Congressman David Rivera -- is reportedly under serious federal investigation. Federal investigators say he was "essentially living off" the state Republican Party credit card over the past decade.
Rubio, himself, has been accused of racking up $100,000 in Amex bills on the state card.  He paid $16,000 back, apologized for the error, and says the rest is legit.  The reporter who broke the story - Jay Weaver of the Miami Herald - says there is no ongoing federal investigation of Rubio over this issue.  A complaint with the Florida State Ethics Commission was thrown out last week.
The other issues that surround Rubio are also nickel and dime stuff:

•  He took $210,000 in campaign contributions that the Federal Elections Commission said were not legal and he paid a $8,000 fine for doing so.  Lots and lots of Senators - most notably former Senator Hillary Clinton - have done a lot worse.

•  He double-billed for nine plane trips.  Said it was an oversight and paid it back.

•  He didn't report a $135,000 home equity loan.  Again, he apologized and reported it.

Are these charges enough to keep a charismatic, principled conservative off the ticket?  I don't think so.

But the standards for a VP nominee are worse than those for Caesar's wife.  Any hint of scandal is enough to make the party operatives run for cover.  The rule for any VP choice is the same as the Hippocratic Oath for doctors: "first, do no harm."

It may be that these brush-fires lead the party honchos to run to the nearest boring white man for the nomination.  But, where there's smoke, there isn't always fire.

'Eat More Chikin’...a rallying cry heard across the land
By: Diane Sori

Yesterday was Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day and I was proud to take part in a day that for me was about protecting our First Amendment right to free speech, for if free speech is taken away from us, America as we know her will cease to exist.

I am one of millions who patronized the restaurant yesterday in solidarity for Chick-fil-A, which drew unnecessary criticism because its chief executive officer, Dan Cathy, said in an interview that he and his company were against gay marriage and that he supports "the biblical definition of the family unit” meaning the traditional view of marriage being between one man and one woman.

And it is his right under our First Amendment to state his beliefs whether some like it or not.

Mr. Cathy’s comments brought unintended consequences for a company just trying to sell chicken and run their PRIVATELY owned business according to their Christian beliefs.  And for that they’re being crucified in the media.

All this media attention led to some left-leaning customers pledging to boycott the restaurant chain.  And then some big city mayors, like BIG mouth Chicago mayor Rahm Emmanuel, had the unmitigated gaul to say they would not allow Chick-fil-A restaurants to open in their cities.

Nothing but polarizing showboating bloviations, as NO mayor has the legal right to stop a business from opening in their city.  In fact, the entire brouhaha over Chick-fil-A, in my opinion, is just another tactic Obama and his minions are creating and using so they can get people worked up about the always hot button issues of religion and gay rights, in an effort to try and make everyone forget that the economy under this administration, to put it

Obama and the likes of Rahm Emmanuel have NO trouble sacrificing Chick-fil-A in their quest to keep the White House and push forward their agenda of radically changing American family values and morals, all the while trying to shore up the gay voter base in a faltering campaign season.

While I personally won't get involved in the gay aspect of this argument because I don’t gay bash, never have and never will, and I'm also not sure if this is really just a religious issue per say as some contend, I am getting involved because some are trying to take away both a man’s right to free speech and are trying to financially hurt his business simply because he stated his religious beliefs.

And what those who chastise Mr. Cathy forget is that under the First Amendment the only speech NOT protected is speech which incites violence or the overthrow of the government,  And the last time I looked, stating one’s religious views is neither of those.

So for me, this is a First Amendment issue of paramount importance and I will speak up for and in defense of Mr. Cathy, because if we allow his first Amendment rights to be taken away simply because he expressed his religious views, which by the way people do every day in this country, then I wonder what else guaranteed to us under the First Amendment will be taken away next. 

And under Barack Hussein Obama the sky on that has NO limits.