Muslim Brotherhood seeks US downfall

I recently attended a private briefing by a former FBI counter-terrorism agent who retired early after being marginalized on the job because his concerns about radical Islam were deemed politically incorrect. We'll call him Don Doe. He now works for an outside group, advising leaders at the federal level and seeking to alert local law enforcement about domestic subversion. Doe's partner is a former expert on such issues for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who was also fired from his position for being too insensitive. He had run afoul of a key DOD aide, Hasham Islam, who accused him of being a Christian zealot or "extremist with a pen," according to defense officials.

Doe's presentation to my group was based on years of intelligence work as well as strategic documents which they obtained during an FBI raid from a hidden sub-basement in the Washington-area home of a Muslim leader -- many excerpts of which he showed us. The latter became official court records in last year's Dallas terrorism trial. Much of Doe's information actually comes from published newspaper and TV stories, though these tend to be ignored by the dominant media and high officials. He argued six main conclusions:

(1) Islam in general is a much bigger threat than commonly accepted.

(2) Through its unchangeable holy book, the Koran, Islam mandates, in unqualified terms, active efforts to convert non-Islamic people or to subjugate them and gain submission to Allah.

(3) Religion and politics are so fundamentally tied together in Islam that Muslims cannot peacefully co-exist with other people under a different legal system.

(4) Consequently there are no "moderate" true Muslims.

(5) There is a very well organized movement in America to install Islam and Sharia law.

(6) The Muslims are winning the propaganda war and have positioned their leaders very well and gained tremendous positions and influence in our popular culture while distorting the public perception of their intent while our leadership grossly underestimates the threats.

Don Doe's major points in support of these conclusions were as follows:

The Koran and the Muslim "religion" is more than a religion, it is a complete way of life and the Koran dictates a legal, political, religious and social system that is completely intertwined. One cannot be a true Muslim without believing in Sharia law, and only Sharia. Separation of church and state is not possible in the Muslim world. Islam has had an essentially political character from its very foundation to the present day. An intimate association between religion and politics, between power and cult, marks a principal distinction between Islam and other religions. In traditional Islam and therefore also in resurgent fundamentalist Islam, God is the sole source of sovereignty. God is the head of the state. The state is God's state. The army is God's army. The treasury is God's treasury, and the enemy, of course, is God's enemy.

The clear, expressed, fundamental goal of Islam is world domination. "Jihad" only means "struggle" in propaganda to the West -- in the Koran, it clearly means "Holy War".

Despite propaganda and popular media and liberal advocacy, there are not many interpretations of the Koran -- it is taken by Muslims as Allah's direct words (like the Ten Commandments given directly by God -- word for word). It is quite clear that killing infidels is encouraged and being devious or deceptive in pursuit of Jihad is holy work. There are translations of the Koran devised for Western consumption that distort true provisions and make it appear much more peaceful. There are inconsistencies in the Koran but there is a clear method of interpretation called "abrogation" which means that the provisions which were set out later in time (as Mohammed made his way from Mecca to Medina) completely overrule prior passages. The peaceful passages all came earlier in time, the later, and controlling provisions, are very hostile. Many people who try to understand the Koran and Islam do not understand the timeline of its creation and the fact that the passages are sequenced by length of writing, not chronologically, so they can't easily decipher the controlling passages and see it as inconsistent and subject to many interpretations. There is one university in Egypt that is the recognized ultimate world wide authority on the Koran and Sharia law and it's interpretations and translations are not questioned by the 85% of the World's Muslims who are Sunni disciples.

Virtually every Muslim organization in the US traces its leadership to the Muslim Brotherhood which is working towards world domination (I know, this sounds like a wild "conspiracy theory" -- but the evidence and facts Doe laid out were compelling).

The Muslims are winning the propaganda war and imposing their standards on the West and we, in our spirit of tolerance, are falling right in line -- from trivial things like foot-baths in public places to allowing Muslims to wear full headdresses in banks and through airport security (in an essential disguise that would not be tolerated if worn by anyone else) to allowing Muslim combat training compounds in the US. The Danish cartoon controversy (over which people died) is another example as is the hysteria that accompanies anyone who defaces the Koran or a picture of Mohammed.

The Saudis contribute over $4 billion per year to Islamic expansion (for both violent terrorism and less violent training, indoctrination and insertion). This is four times what the USSR spent on similar efforts at the height of the Cold War.

These terrorist groups often describe their actions as Islamic jihad. Self-proclaimed sentences of punishment or death issued publicly as threats often come in the form of fatwas (Islamic legal judgments). Both Muslims and non-Muslims have been among the targets and victims, but threats against Muslims are often issued as takfir (a declaration that a person, group or institution that describes itself as Muslim has in fact left Islam and thus is a traitor). This is an implicit death threat as the punishment for apostasy (conversion away from Islam) is swift death under Sharia law.

Federal leadership is reluctant to act against these Islamic organizations due to political correctness concerns and the threats of lawsuits by CAIR and others. Doe said that Muslim groups will demand concessions on matters by saying, "You have to do this; you have to do this or I will be offended." The group CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which protests and sues every chance they get to enforce acceptance of Islamic laws and value (such as colleges forced to have separate swimming times for Islamic men and women so not to offend Muslims), is actually a front for the terror group Hamas.

"They're having great success of implementing Shariah law, I could give you a thousand examples," the former FBI agent said.

He also said to watch what is happening in Great Britain, where Islamic radicalism has taken root. He noted that a member of the Dutch Parliament was recently denied entry into the United Kingdom for fear that it would offend Muslims. "They denied him access while at the same time, Islamic law is being instituted on the streets of Great Britain."

In this country, Doe gave the example of Grover Norquist as a prominent conservative activist, married to a Palestinian woman, who has gotten many prominent Muslim leaders into close relationships with high ranking US officials, including Clinton and Bush.

"If you are looking to DHS, the FBI and Congress to solve this," the briefer said, "you're going to be woefully disappointed." FBI agents in the field "are working good cases," but the FBI leadership "is unwilling to do what the agents are asking them to do, which is to pony up and use some courage and start stepping on these people."

We were told of a terror group is called Jamaat ul-Fuqra, known here as Muslims of America, which is a front organization for Pakistani Islamic cleric Sheikh Mubarak Ali Shah Gilani.

Muslims of America has several training compounds, one is near Dover, Tennessee. They cite a Justice Department document from 2006 that exposed 35 compounds in the U.S., which the group alleges are used for terrorist training. The document was marked "Dissemination Restricted to Law Enforcement" and was not supposed to be released to the public.

There are claims that all copies of Sheik Muburak Gilani's terrorist training video, "Soldiers of Allah," had been confiscated and sealed except for one copy. In the documentary, Gilani is shown saying "We are fighting to destroy the enemy. We are dealing with evil at its roots and its roots are America." The training video also shows men taught how to use AK-47s, rocket launchers, and machine guns, as well as how to kidnap and kill Americans, how to conduct sabotage and subversive operations, and instructions on the use mortars and explosives. They want to have Jamaat ul-Fuqra placed on the State Department's Foreign Terrorist Organization Watch List, which would shut down the camps.

Don Doe said that "cowardice" has prevented officials from taking action about the camps scattered across the country.

"We see at the local and state level, a lot of anger towards the federal government, and that anger is well placed."

"We can't ignore it, it's not going to go away," concluded the former FBI agent.

The author is a businessman and investor who studies national security issues. His pen name honors the Gallic leader who saved Europe from Muslim conquest 1300 years ago.

BHO sees no evil with 'enemy' semantics

In a dramatic break with longstanding U.S. government policy and established interpretations of the laws of war, the Obama administration announced Friday afternoon (a time when the government announces policy changes it hopes will be ignored or buried by the news media) that it will abandon the use of the term “enemy combatant” as a standard “for the government’s authority to hold detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility.” (DOJ release) This latest flipflop on legal policy regarding Guantanamo detainees is inconsistent with Obama’s recent policy declaration on detainees held in other areas and established norms of international law – as noted in a previous post. More importantly, it leaves those detainees in legal limbo and opens up the status of all detainees for legal challenges on spurious grounds – a litigator’s wet dream, but a national security nightmare. Incoherent:

The Obama/Holder elimination of “enemy combatant” designation leaves detainees in legal limbo:

The Justice Department filing doesn't give the war prisoners a specific designation. They aren't described as POWs or enemy combatants or unprivileged belligerents, all categories of war prisoners under international law.

A Justice Department official said Friday that, for now, they are just considered ''detainees..”

According to accepted norms of international law, there can be no grey area in detainee status:

"There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law,"[4] as stated in the commentary of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) on the Geneva Conventions, "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents.” Commentary: IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1958)

In the United States, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 codified the legal definition of the term “enemy combatant” and invested the U.S. President with broad discretion to determine whether a person may be designated an unlawful enemy combatant. Holder’s Justice Department, in declaring that only the AUMF (Authorization for the Use of Military Force, 18 September 2001) is the basis for detention authority, contravenes the intent of Congress and subsequently enacted legislation.

Inconsistent:

Elimination of the “enemy combatants” designation for detainees at Guantanamo directly contradicts the continued use – in fact, reinforcement – of the term with regard to detainees held in venues other than Guantanamo (cf recent Obama policy declaration re: Bagram detainees).

We move the most dangerous prisoners – those with the most involvement in terrorist plots, the most presumed intelligence value, the most hard-core members of terrorist organizations - to Guantanamo. Suddenly, they’re no longer “enemy combatants” due to a change in venue? This defies all logic.

Dangerous:

This latest policy shift unnecessarily narrows the scope of authority for detention of terrorists AND the scope of activity subjecting individuals to capture and detention. Strictly speaking, the policy limits detention to those directly connected to the 9/11 attacks, or members of “Taliban or al Qaida forces or associated forces.” What about other terrorist activity, either concurrent or subsequent to 9/11? What about terrorists not belonging to the Taliban, al Qaida, or other “associated forces”? Analogies come to mind about lacking authority to combat and capture Japanese soldiers because they didn’t take part in the Pearl Harbor raid (to say nothing of German, Italian, or other Axis forces). Defense attorneys are no doubt salivating at the prospect of suing to free poor “Achmed” because he’s not a card-carrying member of al Qaida (never mind the fact that he blew up dozens of innocents) – however, those of us in the actual profession of Defense (of this country) are left betrayed by the knowledge that the bad guys we captured and sent to Guantanamo might get released on a technicality.

Yep, that’s “consistent with national security” all right.

What a difference a great nation makes

The world is not in an all-out shooting war, for which we can all be thankful. But why is this? Is it because nations are less violent than they used to be? Hardly. Is it because they have become more reasonable? Doubtful. Is it because the awful consequences of modern weaponry are too terrible to contemplate? Possible, but not necessarily. I submit that the reason that the world has been spared World War III (meaning a war on the scale of the world wars in the last century) is the character and power of the United States of America. This is our gift to the world, not to be foolishly squandered.

Pax Americana may not sit well with either aggressive despotisms restrained by our dominance or utopian dreamers offended that "hard" power can be credited with bringing peace, but it is an undeniable fact of our age. Just as Pax Romana held barbarians in check for centuries, so has our turn at the helm for most of the last century–and Great Britain before that.

Given the stance of our enemies and the prejudices of our own ideologues, it is not easy to demonstrate the truth of the proposition that domination by great nations brings relative peace. But we know that our entry in both world wars was decisive and we haven’t had a world war since the United States rose to the status of a super power in 1945.

True, the Soviet Union also rose to a powerful position, and the two super powers, as they were called, waged "cold war" against each other for more than four decades. While fear of the horrors of nuclear warfare clearly played a part in discouraging hot war, the more telling reason was that we had the power to deter a Soviet strike.

The collapse of the Soviet regime led some to believe, as Francis Fukayama so famously declared, that "history had come to an end" with the triumph of liberal democracy and free markets. But that glorious new age was "delayed" by the rise of Islamist terrorism. Once again, the responsibility of keeping the peace has fallen to us.

Imagine the world in the absence of the United States or, what amounts to the same thing, its decline to minor power status. Is there any doubt that the Islamists would ratchet up their efforts to subdue the Infidels, limited only by their own ambitions and resources, and the feeble efforts of their intended victims?

And that’s not all. Russia may be a shadow of its former self, having demonstrated an inability to produce armaments under the failed communist system. But none of its weak neighbors would be a match for what remains of its nuclear force. Then there’s China, chastened too by the shortcomings of communism, but shrewd enough to move to a fascist system that permits private ownership but actually controls production.

None of these forces would be sufficient to dominate the world, so their leaders would gain territory and/or resources when they could, sign only temporary peace agreements with each other, and generally keep the world in pretty constant turmoil. Perhaps world wars would be avoided, but recall that world war was not expected in 1914. World trade would decline, if not collapse altogether.

The vacuum generated by the decline of the United States might be filled by still other nations–perhaps India, with its vast resources and certainly Japan, both of which would have to be very concerned about an expansionist China. Possibly Europe would find a way to unite its forces against pressure from Russia, although between its addiction to "soft" power and its declining birth rates (and Muslim birthrates soaring), that is highly doubtful.

These are not abstract speculations, for we have elected a president and a Congress that are so absorbed in aggrandizing the power and influence of the federal government that they treat the world outside as something to be downplayed, or finessed by "smart" diplomacy in which we offer concessions to our enemies even before we meet them at the negotiating table.

Just in the last week we learn that the Obama Administration is "reaching out" to Hamas in Gaza, to the Taliban in Afghanistan, and to Russia over nearby defenses against Iran’s missiles. This is an administration that conspicuously lacks a strategic vision for the world and is putting our survival as a free nation at risk.

The world will not go away, just as it didn’t in 1914, 1941 or 2001. If we don’t assume the responsibilities that have been thrust upon us, we will pay a fearful price.

Five world flashpoints confront Obama

(Washington, Mar. 1) While it seems strange to be hailing the prophetic gifts of Joe Biden, his prediction last fall about very serious foreign policy challenges to a President Obama within six months of his inauguration retrospectively appears as one of the most astute and honest insights of the election year. While the buzz in this company town remains dominated by Democratic self-congratulation over their world historical spending spree there is yet detectable an underlying apprehension that further socialist triumphs could be jeopardized by unanticipated eruptions on the international front.

Let us glance quickly at five areas of potential crisis in ascending order of probable importance. North Korea, Russia, Mexico, Israel and, worst of all, Afghanistan head the list of places where Biden's prophecy could soon come true.

Hillary Clinton’s recent visit to the Far East brought renewed attention to continuing instability in the Korean peninsula. The indefensible Bush blunder of formally removing North Korea from the list of terror-sponsoring nations against all evidence and in return for absolutely nothing gravely disturbed Japanese-American relations, validated the blackmailing policies of Kim Jong-I L, and sent strong signals of American inconstancy and indecisiveness throughout the region.

Copying a play patented by fellow nuclear wannabe Iran, North Korea recently announced that its’ “Space Program” would soon be testing a new rocket that incidentally has the capacity to reach the West Coast of the United States. Secretary Clinton boldly described this move as “unhelpful”.

As President Obama has his first personal encounters with Western European leaders a major topic will be how to deal with the ever feisty Vladimir Putin. Currently the Obama Administration is “studying” the Bush promise to install an SDI-like missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. The result of this evaluation will tell all of East Central Europe, particularly Ukraine, the extent of their “aloneness” vis a vis their former masters in the Kremlin.

In general beyond “feeling their love” President Obama will find that regarding increased military assistance in Afghanistan and elsewhere, the NATO allies aren’t going to do anymore for him than they did for George Bush- probably even less considering their withdrawal timetables on current troop commitments and their continually shrinking defense budgets.

When a recent National Intelligence Estimate declared Mexico to be in a flat footed tie with Pakistan as the world’s leading candidate for “Failed Nation” status, America was suddenly awakened to the fact that things haven’t been going swimmingly for our amigos south of the border. In a bizarre act of collective non-attention the U.S. media paid almost no heed to thousands of assassinations (including many spectacular beheadings), nonstop violence by drug cartels who effectively rule large parts of the country, the total ineffectiveness of the corrupted National Police and the recent calling out of the Army to regain control of certain provinces along the U.S. border. Even worse, multi-billion dollar drug smuggling into the U.S. has caused a wave of violence to spill hugely across our borders. Today Phoenix has the second highest kidnapping rate of any city in the world.

In the Middle East the post-election emergence of Benjamin Netanyahu as leader of a very hawkish Israeli government dashes the hopes of the Obama Administration for advancing the endlessly fruitless “Peace Process”.

While Netanyahu will bide his time pending talks with Obama and the Iranian elections in June virtually all Israelis have been persuaded by the 7,000 rockets that landed on their country that talking to the Palestinians is useless until Iran’s proxy Hamas is destroyed.

Finally the number one foreign challenge for President Obama is clearly Afghanistan. In a masterful political sleight of hand during the campaign Obama demonstrated his toughness by defining Afghanistan as the “Right War” that he would “win”, while Iraq was the “Wrong War” that George Bush had “lost”. It would be a supreme irony if in the end History records Bush as the “Victor of Iraq” and Obama as the man who had “lost” Afghanistan ( and Pakistan as well).

A recent USA Today story on Afghanistan was titled “Obama’s War”. That story and several others have noted that the anti-war passions that have been the hallmark of the Democratic Party for over forty years are already rising. The exceedingly low key announcement of 17,000 more troops going to Afghanistan and the ongoing “strategic re-evaluation” suggest that the President is very aware of his dilemma.

As the world watches the Obama Drama continues to unfold.

William Moloney’s columns have appeared in the Wall St. Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, Washington Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, Baltimore Sun, Denver Post, and Rocky Mountain News.

Dem delusions debilitate America abroad

As the nation’s attention is currently focused on our troubled commerce, and no less on the Big Government responses that President Barack Obama favors, it is easy to slight international relations. But this administration will be no more successful in its so-called "soft power" approach to intractable and dangerous situations than was President Bill Clinton. Intellectual sophisticates are afflicted with the conceit that words can accomplish what force cannot. Long ago the Greek political philosopher Aristotle identified the error, viz., that politics can be reduced to rhetoric. Aristotle wrote a work on rhetoric as well as politics and ethics, so he did not believe that rhetoric was unnecessary. But he understood that it was not sufficient.

This sort of prudence was fully appreciated by America’s founders, as they wrote in the Declaration of Independence that "free and independent states" have "full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances [and] establish commerce." In the Constitution they authorized Congress "to provide for the common defense," "to regulate commerce with foreign nations," and declare war; and the President to command the armed forces, negotiate treaties with foreign nations and establish diplomatic relations.

It is necessary to review these elementary facts to remind ourselves that the world is a dangerous place, occupied by enemies as well as friends, not to mention fair-weather friends and even enemies with whom we may at times have a common interest. It will not do, as Democrats are prone, to take refuge in our fundamental principles. Hard choices must be made, based on what can accomplish the most good and cause the least evil in the circumstances.

When in 2001 President George W. Bush described an Axis of Evil, consisting of Iraq, Iran and North Korea, he spoke the truth and laid down our obligations to deter or defeat the threat that they posed. Their common denominators were their despotic nature and their possession, or imminent possession, of weapons of mass destruction and, sooner or later, the means of delivering them to other countries.

Much abuse was heaped upon the President for singling out Iraq, particularly when there turned out to be insufficient evidence that Saddam Hussein was as advanced a threat as our intelligence estimated. But Bush rightly concluded that temporizing with the regime that had used chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds was no longer entitled to keep his region and the world in tension.

Barack Obama pretty consistently denounced Bush’s Iraq policy, on the grounds that force was employed without adequate cause. He also contended that "we had taken our eyes off" the primary target in Afghanistan, where the former Taliban regime had harbored the Al Qaeda terrorists who perpetrated the vicious attack on our country on September 11, 2001.

There are those who think that Obama’s public statements on Iraq and Afghanistan show that his quarrel with Bush was over strategy and tactics, not over the broad aim of defeating our enemies. But permit me to doubt. His decision to keep troops in Iraq somewhat longer than the 16 months he promised during the campaign simply split the difference with the Joint Chiefs, who recommended longer to accomplish the pullout. Whether Obama means to preserve the strategic advantage which Bush gained by the successful "surge" remains to be seen.

If nothing else, liberal Democrat members of Congress were unhappy with the decision, not less because a substantial number of troops will remain after the withdrawals. Obama already caved to Congress in the content of the "porkulus" bill recently passed. Why should he show any leadership in Iraq if his fellow Democrats want to bug out sooner with less assets left in place?

As to Iran, partly because our main focus was on Iraq but also because domestic opposition to that intervention placed severe limits on what could be accomplished elsewhere, Bush consented to European negotiations with Iran, which has not tempered the mullah’s drive for a nuclear war capacity. Yet Obama denounced Bush for not negotiating with Iran.

Similarly with North Korea. Bush lacked leverage with that tyrannical regime too, although he may be criticized for having let the State Department dominate the negotiations, as the communists’ military buildup goes on unabated.

But in spite of the failure of these negotiations, Obama has already made clear his intention to talk–"without preconditions" he said during the campaign–to these and other despotic regimes. He believes that he and his "cosmopolitan" colleagues will point out to the two remaining members of the Axis of Evil the folly of threatening the world with nuclear weapons. Fat chance.