Displaying posts categorized under


The Muslim Brotherhood: Peddling Sharia as Social Justice by Judith Bergman

Human Rights Watch, an organization that is supposed to look out for victims of human rights abuses, not abusers of human rights is begging US decision makers not to designate the Muslim Brotherhood — which, if it had its way, would take away everyone’s human rights and substitute them with sharia law — a foreign terrorist organization.

“Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope”. — Muslim Brotherhood motto.

Conveniently, Hamas — which according to article two of its charter, is “one of the wings of Moslem Brotherhood in Palestine” — is, it seems, working on a new charter. The new charter would declare that Hamas is not a part of the Muslim Brotherhood, despite its always having been so. That way, is the Muslim Brotherhood’s “narrative” of newfound “nonviolence” suddenly supposed to become believable?

Gehad el-Haddad, official spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), is on a mission to rewrite the terrorist and radical history of the MB. He seems to be doing this for the consumption of naïve Americans. These seem only too willing to believe — in the name of tolerance, diversity and trying to be non-judgmental — that an organization whose ultimate goal is the supreme reign of Islamic sharia law everywhere — if necessary through violent jihad — could possibly value anything even approximating equality and the rule of (non-sharia) law.

“We are not terrorists,” wrote a political activist for the MB, Gehad el-Haddad, in a recent article in the New York Times.

“The Muslim Brotherhood’s philosophy is inspired by an understanding of Islam that emphasizes the values of social justice, equality and the rule of law… We believe that our faith is inherently pluralistic and comprehensive and that no one has a divine mandate or the right to impose a single vision on society… Nothing speaks more to our unequivocal commitment to nonviolence than our continued insistence on peaceful resistance, despite unprecedented state violence”.

The “faith”, which el-Haddad avoids naming, is Islam. The very essence of Islam, as sanctioned in the Quran and the hadiths, however, seems to be the belief in a divine mandate to impose the single vision of Islam on the world — if necessary, through violent jihad. Its motto is:

“Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope”.

Even dawa, the Islamic call to conversion, or proselytizing — as explained by the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual leader, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, host of one of Al Jazeera’s most popular programs, Sharia and Life, which reaches an estimated 60 million viewers worldwide — is an Islamic summons for the non-violent conquest of non-Muslim lands. As Qaradawi told a Muslim Arab Youth Association convention in Toledo, Ohio, in 1995, “We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.”

Qaradawi, in a recording from 2007, says that the aim of this “peaceful” conquest consists mainly of the introduction of Islamic law, sharia. According to Qaradawi, sharia should be introduced in a new country gradually, over a five-year period, before implementing it in full. Sharia includes the end of free speech under “blasphemy laws”; the oppression of women, including women being worth half as much as a man in court and inheritance; polygamy, and the persecution of Jews (Qaradawi advocates killing all of them). Qaradawi has explained in TV recordings how sharia also includes chopping off hands for theft, killing apostates and homosexuals, as well as beating women as a means of “disciplining” them.

The New York Times, ostensibly concerned with “fake news”, evidently has no qualms about lending its pages to such straightforward propaganda as El-Haddad’s piece on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood.

According to a recent report by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), the MB recently launched a lobbying offensive in the United States to charm decision-makers in the Trump administration and Congress to give up on the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2017, re-introduced on January 9, 2017, by Senator Ted Cruz.

According to the MEMRI report, the Muslim Brotherhood’s lobbying efforts include:

“Launching a widespread informational media campaign, including the hiring of U.S. lobbying and legal firms, outreach to the press in the U.S., and dissemination of informational content aimed at improving its image in the West, particularly in the U.S.”

Muslim IT Hackers in Congress Had Access to Everything Daniel Greenfield

It really speaks to the level of corruption and disorganization that this situation was able to go on for so long. Or that a clearly corrupt bunch that seemed willing to do anything had such access.

I’m not sure if that last sentence should be taken to refer to Congressional Democrats or the Pakistani Muslim IT brothers in their employ who are at the center of an access scandal. And a bunch of other scandals.

Awan ran technology for multiple House Democrats, and soon four of his relatives — including brothers Abid and Jamal — appeared on the payroll of dozens of other members, collecting $4 million in taxpayer funds since 2010.

“They had access to EVERYTHING. Correspondence, emails, confidential files — if it was stored on the Member system, they had access to it,” the former House Information Resources (HIR) technology worker with first-hand knowledge of Imran’s privileges told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“There were some things – like access to the House email system that were totally controlled by the technicians at HIR. In order for certain permissions to be granted, a form was required to ensure that there was a paper trail for the requested changes. Imran was constantly complaining that he had to go through this process and trying to get people to process his access requests without the proper forms. Some of the permissions he wanted would give him total access to the Members’ stuff.”

“IT staff at HIR can be tracked for every keystroke they make,” the worker said. But by comparison, “when these guys were granted access to the Member’s computer systems there is no oversight or tracking of what they may be doing on the Member’s system. For example they could make a copy of anything on the Member’s computer system to a thumb drive or have it sent to a private server they had set up and no one would know.”

So we have some rather dubious people with access to everything on the system of Dems working on high level committees. And it’s a safe bet that they were no more secure about it than Hillary. On top of that you have Capitol Police, a sinecure position, investigating this, instead of the FBI or the Secret Service.

The central IT staffer said any suggestion that the brothers’ access didn’t span the full gamut of congressional intrigue was silly because they were the ones giving out permissions.

“When a new Member begins, they guide them on everything from which computer system to purchase to which constituent management system to go with and all other related hardware purchases. Then they install everything and set up all the accounts AND grant all the required permissions and restrictions,” the staffer said.

“In effect, they are given administrative control of the Members’ computer operations. They then set up a remote access so they can connect from wherever they are and have full access to everything on the Member’s system.”

You had Pakistanis with a backdoor to the systems of key figures who oversaw national security agencies. This is really bad. And yet keeping the investigation out of sight will bury it.

The US Government Again Fails to Protect Sensitive Personal Information By Stephen Bryen

Once again the U.S. government has failed to protect sensitive personal information, this time highly sensitive information on 4,000 Air Force officers. This information, contained in extensive 127-page individual security questionnaires known as SF-86 were found on a backup hard drive that was neither password protected or encrypted. In addition, extensive information on high-profile visitors to sites in Afghanistan was also on the same drive along with gigabytes of Outlook emails whose content has yet to be assessed.

This follows a number of other similar cases, the most notorious was the highly successful penetration of SF-86 files and other data held by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in June, 2015. In that case, 21.5 million American’s personal data was compromised, again involving the SF-86 security questionnaire. On top of that, 5.6 million fingerprints were also stolen. In applying for a security clearance, the government collects fingerprint data and photos.

Full disclosure: my personal data was also compromised in the OPM hack and I received an OPM letter and some worthless “free for a year” coverage of my personal data going forward.

Does the government have any responsibility to protect sensitive information?

Apparently, anyone who believes that the government has this responsibility is sadly misguided. Not only does the government not protect personal information, it hands it around to other agencies routinely and gives it to private contractors for “processing.”

Like your passport! You go to a passport office, fill out all the information, provide a birth certificate and all the requisite contact information, and you give the passport office photos, one of which will wind up embossed into your passport. Then the Passport Office sends all that (how, by mail?) to a private contractor to “process.” Who has access to it is anyone’s guess. The information is not classified and therefore is not formally protected in any manner.

The same holds true for your tax return, which you send in to the IRS. nowadays electronically. Maybe it is semi-encrypted when you electronically transmit the form, or your accountant does it for you, but when it arrives at the IRS it is stored as an ordinary file with no protection.

The SF-86 form is an especially pernicious example because it contains a vast amount of information, everything from every place you may have worked, who your friends and colleagues are, to your business involvements and who your family members and relatives may be. All of this provides hugely valuable information to potential adversaries who may be nation-states, but who also could be terrorist organizations.

Any Secrets Left to Steal? By Rachel Ehrenfeld

Everyone is shocked, shocked by WikiLeaks’ latest exposé that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been exploiting software vulnerabilities in our digital and electronic devices. All those “shocked” should have known better by now.

After the publications of files stolen by former National Security Agency’s contractor, Edward Snowden, on U.S. military capabilities, operations, tactics, techniques and procedures, and surveillance details, President Obama announced, “Nobody is listening to your telephone calls.”

In the spring of 2016 — months before Hillary Clinton’s and John Podesta’s emails were published by WikiLeaks — the Pew Research Center survey showed that many Americans “do not trust modern institutions to protect their personal data — even as they frequently neglect cybersecurity best practices in their own personal lives.”

For well over a decade, cyber experts have been testifying in open and closed Congressional hearings on the escalation of hacking into United States government agencies and private industries, communication, websites, and email. All without exception issued warnings on the short-term damages and the long-term threat posed by such hacking to U.S. national security and interests, and the American people by Chinese, Iranian, Russian, and other cybersavvy intelligence agencies, criminal and terrorist organizations. All the while very few, if any, warned of the proliferation of ground-based jammers and their growing interference with GPS timing and locations services, or data corruption and insertion.

In 2010, then Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Jim Miller lamented, “The scale of compromise, including the loss of sensitive and unclassified data, is staggering. We’re talking about terabytes of data, equivalent to multiple libraries of Congress.” (The Library of Congress is the world’s largest library, archiving millions of books, photographs, maps, and recordings.)

Successive governments and the private sector have failed to secure our communications, exposing our personal and national secrets, costing untold economic damage to individuals, companies, and our national security.

While the Obama administration oversaw the accelerated pace of moving to wireless communications — leaving very few alternatives, if any, for a time when those will be unavailable due to attack or natural disaster — it has adopted a slow knee-jerk cybersecurity policy. In 2014, the Obama administration was tasked by Congress to develop cyber countermeasure policies. But in response to Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) question “Is it correct that these are policy-decisions that have not been made?” U.S. Cyber Command Commander Admiral Michael S. Rogers responded: “The way I would describe it is, we clearly still are focused more on” an “event-by-event” approach to cyber incidents.” He urged to “accelerate debate on how to balance security and privacy in the ever-changing digital realm.” Otherwise, Rogers warned, “an enemy could change and manipulate data — rather than enter a computer system and steal — that action would be a threat to national security.”

The Arabs Know that the Moslem Brotherhood are Terrorists By James Lewis

Conservatives see the threat of aggressive Islam, which puts us far ahead of liberals, who merely live in stupefied denial. But conservatives tend to treat Islam as monolithic, which it is not.

Right now the Trump administration is considering whether to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, which sounds to Arab ears like “Is the Pope Catholic?” Do the Saudis play double games?” “Are the mullahs of Iran really genocidal?”

The answer is Yes! Yes! and Yes!

Which is why even Saudi Arabia, Russia, Syria, Bahrain, and the UAE have officially designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a terror group. One of biggest on the Sunni side of the street.

A new article in Cairo’s Al Ahram this week gives an explanation even the New York Times could understand (if it wanted to). The MBs promote violent Jihad, and carry it on themselves in their civil war against Egypt. They sponsor Hamas terror against Israel. They follow radical doctrines. Most of all (and here comes a new word), the MB’s are taqfiri. (TAHK-fear-ey). They regularly declare other Muslim groups to be infidels, which means they will kill other Muslims unless they submit to the MB version of Islam. From its most basic belief, the Ikhwan is at war with all Muslims who do not follow its militant war doctrine. The doctrine of taqfir is basic, and deviation puts you outside of the circle.

And yes, there are peaceful Muslim sects, like the Ahmadiyya. But they are small minorities in constant trouble from the violence-supporting majority.

There are also rational Muslims like Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who has said in a famous speech:

It’s inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma [Islamic world] to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible! …

Is it possible that 1.6 billion people [Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants — that is 7 billion — so that they themselves may live? Impossible!

Those may be the most important words any Muslim leader has said since 9/11/01.

Yet Obama chose to ignore Sisi and supported the Muslim Brotherhood instead. What does that tell you?

Hillary’s closest confidante, Huma Abedin, comes from an MB family, was indoctrinated from childhood onward, and is paid by a family “charity” who are all MBs. Hillary and Bill know all that, of course, but the Moobs bring in huge amounts of money to the Democrats, and that’s what counts for the Clintons. (It should also matter to the rest of us.)

Justice Department Enlists ‘Reformed’ ISIS Fighter in Risky Deradicalization Scheme By Patrick Poole

The Justice Department has enlisted a former Islamic State fighter in what they say is an effort to combat radicalization.

But the program, centered around Brooklyn native Mohimanul Alam Bhuiya, is fraught with considerable risks as so-called “deradicalization” efforts around the globe have failed spectacularly, and recent high-profile cases of former terrorists-turned-therapists experiments have not ended well.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

Mo, a U.S. citizen whose full name is under seal, left New York City in the summer of 2014 to join Islamic State in Syria.

Mo, now 28 years old, quickly became disillusioned, he says now. Four months in, he sent an email to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. “Please help me get home,” he wrote, according to court documents. “I’m fed up with this evil.”


Authorities in November 2014 deported Mo back to Brooklyn, where he pleaded guilty to two terrorism charges. He told the FBI that he acted as a building guard for Islamic State and taught other recruits how to use computer software.

Since then, Mo’s work with the U.S. government has included an unusual form of cooperation: conducting an intervention with a 15-year-old boy from Brooklyn who was posting tweets that appeared to support violence and Islamic State, also known as ISIS. The intervention so far has successfully dissuaded the teenager from joining the terrorist group.

It turns out that the Justice Department program is intended to reduce the sentences of U.S. terror supporters:

Under the new initiative, Brooklyn federal prosecutors will also use more discretion before charging someone with providing “material support” to terrorists, a broad violation that carries a maximum of 20 years in prison. Prosecutors may try to arrest some individuals on a lesser charge without the terrorism stigma, such as wire fraud.

For suspects already in custody, prosecutors will give more consideration to a shorter prison sentence in exchange for a longer period of supervised release that includes counseling or treatment.

There’s certainly no reason to question the motives of federal prosecutors backing this program, but there is evidence that calls into question their judgment.

Muslim Activist Detained After Refusing Staten Island Ferry Bag Check, Predictability Ensues By Patrick Poole

Self-styled “community organizer” and “civil rights activist” Hesham El-Meligy was detained earlier today by the NYPD after refusing a bag search while attempting to board the Staten Island Ferry.

Predictably, El-Meligy is claiming racial profiling and “Islamophobia,” and insisting his rights were denied. But fellow Staten Islanders are pushing back on his claims.

A religious and political activist on Staten Island claims he was placed in handcuffs, frisked and issued two summonses by NYPD officers based on the way he looks.

Hesham El-Meligy, a Muslim who was born in Egypt, was temporarily detained and searched by police at about 8 a.m. Wednesday at the Staten Island Ferry terminal in St. George, after he refused a random bag check.

After a search of his backpack, he was issued summonses for trespassing and disorderly conduct and allowed on to the ferry, police said Thursday.

El-Meligy, founder of the Islamic Civic Association on Staten Island and chairman of the Staten Island Libertarian Party, said he believes the bag check wasn’t so random.

He took to Facebook hours after the incident, saying he felt singled out because his Egyptian heritage.

“I have no doubt that many (people) are in fact stopped randomly, but the manner this was done in my particular case made it feel different,” said El-Meligy.

But at least one eyewitness to El-Meligy’s detention disputes his account:

Could You Prevent Big Brother Watching? By Rachel Ehrenfeld and Stephen Bryen

In Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell described the protagonist, Winston Smith’s efforts to find a way to prevent Big Brother from watching his expressions:

“The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live — did live, from habit that became instinct — in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.”

Winston kept his back turned to the telescreen. It was safer, though, as he well knew, even a back can be revealing.”

In 1949, when Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four was first published, one could have evaded Big Brother’s watchful camera under the cover of darkness. Today, however, “Night Vision” technologies can penetrate darkness.

Today, according to Wikileaks latest stolen documents release, the United States Intelligence Agency (CIA) together with the British domestic Intelligence agency- MI5, joined in developing televisions (especially Samsung’s Smart TV), smartphones, cars, and other computerized devices into spying machines.

So, what do you do to stop any Big Brother from invading your privacy, spying on all your activities everywhere? Watching you and listing to your conversations? Even to your snoring?

Stephen Bryen offers the following:

What do you do if all your devices are open to hacking? –Android and iPhone phones and watches, Bluetooth, WiFi, “Smart” TVs, laptops, tablets, GPS, car stereo, computers, Alexa and Google Home, home alarm systems –in other words, everything?

Meeting Security Challenges Through Vigilance, Readiness and Resilience by Chuck Brooks

In 2017 we are facing a new and more sophisticated array of physical security and cybersecurity challenges that pose significant risk to people, places and commercial networks. The nefarious global threat actors are terrorists, criminals, hackers, organized crime, malicious individuals, and, in some cases, adversarial nation states. Everyone and anything is vulnerable, and addressing the threats requires incorporating a calculated security strategy.

According to Transparency Market Research, the global homeland security market is expected to grow a market size of $364.44 billion by 2020. A large part of the spending increase over the past year is directly related to cybersecurity in both the public and private sectors.

A security strategy to meet growing challenges needs to be both comprehensive and adaptive. Defined by the most basic elements in managed risk, security is composed of:

Layered vigilance (intelligence, surveillance);
Readiness (operational capabilities, visual command center, interdiction technologies);
Resilience (coordinated response, mitigation and recovery).

The specifics of a security approach may vary according to circumstances, but the mesh that connects the elements is situational awareness combined with systematic abilities for critical communications in cases of emergency.

Because society is undergoing such a rapid technological change, the traditional paradigms for addressing threats are evolving with the security challenges. Two particular security challenges characterize the current and future connective landscape in both the public and private sectors: protecting critical infrastructure, and protecting the Internet of Things (IoT) and Smart Cities.

The Security Challenge of Protecting Critical Infrastructure

In the U.S., most of the critical infrastructure, including defense, oil and gas, electric power grids, health care, utilities, communications, transportation, education, banking and finance, is owned by the private sector (about 85 percent) and regulated by the public sector. Protecting the critical infrastructure poses a difficult challenge because democratic societies by their nature are open and accessible. According to the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, a Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Center of Excellence based at the University of Maryland, between 1970 and 2015, 2,723 terrorist attacks took place in the U.S.; of these attacks, 2,055 (75 percent) targeted critical infrastructure.

Intelligence Community Leaking Saboteurs set on bringing down a president. Matthew Vadum

Saboteurs in the U.S. intelligence community posing as patriots have been working hard to drive President Donald Trump from the White House.

Former National Security Agency intelligence analyst and former War College professor John R. Schindler bragged on Twitter last week about the spy-led plot his friends are conducting against the president.

“Now we go nuclear,” he tweeted. “IC [intelligence community] war [is] going to new levels. Just got an [email from] senior IC friend, it began: ‘He will die in jail.’”

“US intelligence is not the problem here,” Schindler added. “The President’s collusion with Russian intelligence is. Many details, but the essence is simple.”

In a column Feb. 12, Schindler cited wild, unproven, conspiratorial theories about Trump’s ties to Russia to justify his comrades’ seditious push to remove Trump from power.

[T]he still-forming Trump administration is already doing serious harm to America’s longstanding global intelligence partnerships. In particular, fears that the White House is too friendly to Moscow are causing close allies to curtail some of their espionage relationships with Washington—a development with grave implications for international security, particularly in the all-important realm of counterterrorism.

People like Schindler think they know what’s best for America in terms of national security and foreign policy. Allowing an outsider like Donald Trump to do the job Americans elected him to do is unthinkable to them. So Trump must go.

People of Schindler’s ilk are using government resources in an effort to overthrow the nation’s duly elected government. While smiling on TV and assuring the public his administration was fully cooperating with the Trump transition team, President Obama gave members of the intelligence community permission to wage war against then-incoming President Trump.

Before leaving office President Obama cleared the way for his confederates in the intel world to ramp up their use of dirty tricks to kick the legs out from under the incoming Trump administration by changing intelligence-sharing rules. The goal is to prevent Trump from rolling back Obama’s poisonous legacy.

The most famous victim so far of what could be called Obama’s shadow government is National Security Advisor Mike Flynn, an anti-Islamofascist hardliner who was forced out of his post Feb. 13 by what appears to be a deep state cabal centered around the sleazy former Obama advisor Ben Rhodes. As Flynn’s replacement, Trump has appointed “warrior-scholar” U.S. Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster.

Rhodes and other former Obama administration officials were part of an intrigue that led to the downfall of Flynn, investigative journalist Adam Kredo reported at the Washington Free Beacon.

Flynn’s resignation was “the culmination of a secret, months-long campaign by former Obama administration confidantes to handicap President Donald Trump’s national security apparatus and preserve the nuclear deal with Iran, according to multiple sources in and out of the White House who described to the Washington Free Beacon a behind-the-scenes effort by these officials to plant a series of damaging stories about Flynn in the national media.”

Kredo isn’t the only one crying foul.