Dem Propaganda & Deep State Coup?


John R. Houk

© March 6, 2017

 

The Dems have tried to frame President Trump with getting the Russians to fix the November elections to Trump’s favor. Indeed, traitor former President Obama has been exposed with his own self trying to sway the election with the Russian Fake News story combined with some Watergate style campaign spying in the name of National Security.

 

FINALLY! President Trump is pushing back! Our President is letting the cat out of the bag and the Dems are trying to obfuscate the push back with typical denials in their defense of treasonous Obama.

 

Here is some more Obama/Dem Deep State documentation of the travesty of pulling a legal coup against President Trump. I have to wonder. WHEN the legal coup fails, will the Obama/Dems begin a violent coup as evidenced in the streets with violence against Pro-Trumpers? Can you say Loretta Lynch?

 

VIDEO: Loretta Lynch Calls for MARCHING, BLOOD and even DEATH in Resistance to Trump in new Facebook Video

 

Posted by The Tolerant Left

Published on Mar 4, 2017

 

As to the push back against Obama, Mark Levin outlines the very same thing Trump refers to on Fox & Friends yesterday. The irony! The sources cited by Levin are Left oriented rags (Levin uses the term “another Right Wing” in a tongue-in-cheek fashion to get his point across).

 

VIDEO: Mark Levin PROVES Obama Wiretapping on President Donald Trump | Fox & Friends 3/5/17

 

Posted by KagenOfficial

Published on Mar 5, 2017

 

Mark Levin interview on Fox News Fox & Friends on March 5, 2017 3/5/17 and provides proof of Obama Administration Wiretapping Spying by FBI and NSA. Mark Levin proves wiretap trump tower

 

If you are foolish enough to watch other news outlets castigate President Trump for his tweets against treasonous Obama, YOU have to see the hypocrisy that Levin sources the Left for Obama meddling in the 2016 election cycle!

 

JRH 3/6/17

Please Support NCCR

************

SPYGATE: Mark Levin Provides The Timeline And Proof Of The Obama Administration Using Police Tactics Against Trump [VIDEO]

 

By Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

March 5, 2017 

Noisy Room

 

Obama Spying

 

Mark Levin is on a tear and it is a wonder to behold. I just watched him provide solid proof on Fox News on how all these police tactics against President Trump did indeed occur. The media provided most of the proof themselves that the two FISA requests were sought by Obama… the first one in June of last year, which mentioned Trump directly and was denied, and a second that occurred in October last year and was narrowed in scope, then was approved. It looks like it may have been targeting a server in the White House that was emailing Russian banks supposedly. No wrongdoing was found, unless of course you count what Obama did.

 

Levin has laid out exactly how this should be investigated and he has the full attention of the White House. His findings and recommendations have been circulated to several White House staffers, according to Washington Post reporter Robert Costa. The FISA orders and transcripts should now be made public and hearings should begin over all this. The media is still insisting there is no proof, when they provided said proof. This is insane.

 

From Conservative Review:

 

Mark Levin, Conservative Review’s editor-in-chief, recommends the Trump administration open an investigation into Barack Obama. Levin states the former president’s team used police-state tactics against then-candidate Trump during the 2016 election.

 

“The gravity of this is unparalleled. It appears that during the course of a presidential election, the Obama administration used both intelligence and law enforcement agencies to investigate the Republican nominee’s campaign and certain surrogates,” Levin tells Conservative Review.

 

Levin – who served as chief of staff for President Reagan’s Attorney General Ed Meese – explained the potential scandal on his Thursday evening radio show:

 

“We have a prior administration – Barack Obama and his surrogates – who are supporting Hillary Clinton and her party, the Democratic Party. Who were using the … intelligence activities to surveil members of the Trump campaign, and to put that information out in the public.

 

“The question is: Was Obama surveilling top Trump campaign officials during the election?” Levin asked on “The Mark Levin Show.”

 

Mark Levin is calling this a silent coup. And he is correct. I’ve looked right at this evidence for months and I never connected the dots. I’m so glad Levin did. It is obvious to me that Barack Obama did know about all this and had Lynch at the DOJ once again do his dirty work. There was and is an orchestrated plan to sabotage the Trump presidency and not only stop him from getting his appointees approved, but stop him from accomplishing anything of merit or that would hurt the Obama legacy.

 

A myriad of things now look very connected. The protests and riots, Valerie Jarrett moving into Obama’s mansion, Jarrett’s daughter being hired by CNN to cover the DOJ and Jeff Sessions when she’s not even a journalist, the attack on Jeff Sessions himself, and on and on and on. When do we wake up and realize we are at war within? And that Obama and his activists must be stopped and held accountable. You’ve got Loretta Lynch literally calling for blood and death in our streets: …They’ve marched, they’ve bled and yes, some of them died. This is hard. Every good thing is. We have done this before. We can do this again– Loretta Lynch, February 28 2017 This is who we are fighting and we must now see this through and show the left that we will not stand for police state tactics against Americans like this and especially against an elected President.

 

[Noisy Room Video posted above]

 

Full Interview [Fox & Friends Weekend]: http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/03/05/mark-levin-donald-trump-barack-obama-wiretapping

+++

WAS OBAMA’S TAP OF TRUMP LEGAL, AMERICAN?

Exclusive: Joseph Farah reveals why scandal is ‘bigger and worse than Watergate’

 

By JOSEPH FARAH

March 5, 2017

WND

 

After Donald Trump blew the whistle on the eavesdropping of his 2016 campaign headquarters by Barack Obama’s administration, few in the media or elsewhere seem to be asking the obvious questions:

Was it legal?

 

Was it ethical – in the American way?

 

One thing is for certain: If the roles were reversed and the Trump administration bugged Democrats, you can imagine the media would take a much different view.

 

Let’s first take a look at how the media reported this travesty of justice, political decorum, the Constitution and American legal tradition:

 

  • Washington Post: President Trump on Saturday angrily accused former President Barack Obama of orchestrating a “Nixon/Watergate” plot to tap the phones at his Trump Tower headquarters in the run-up to last fall’s election, providing no evidence to support his explosive claim and drawing a flat denial from Obama’s office.

 

  • CNN: Trump’s baseless wiretap claim

 

  • Atlantic: Trump’s Unfounded Claims of a “Nixon/Watergate” Wiretapping Scheme

 

  • Huffington Post: Obama Refutes Allegation that He Wiretapped Trump Tower During Campaign

 

  • New York Daily News: Trump’s poor understanding of national security investigations may prove dangerous

 

  • New York Times: President Trump on Saturday accused former President Barack Obama of tapping his phones at Trump Tower the month before the election, leveling the explosive allegation without offering any evidence.

 

The emphasis of all of these “fake news” reports is disingenuous to say the least. Obama didn’t deny his administration wiretapped Trump. He said no one at the White House did. That is a virtual admission that his administration did, probably Justice Department, meaning the “apolitical Loretta Lynch” who just called for “blood and death” in the streets to stop Trump, much to the approval of Senate Democrats. It’s an obvious parsing of words by the slick Obama.

 

The accusation is indeed bigger than Watergate, which began with an attempt not to eavesdrop directly on Richard Nixon’s opponent in the 1972 presidential election, but on Larry O’Brian, the head of the DNC, whose offices were in the Watergate Hotel. He was the Debbie Wasserman-Schultz of his day, but she and Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta didn’t bother securing their email communications, and you could read them all on WikiLeaks.

 

And that brings us to the excuse for Trump’s campaign being undoubtedly bugged – the elusive evidence for Russian hacking and interference in the 2016 U.S. election.

 

If you doubt there is no evidence, just carefully read every New York Times story on the fake scandal. Way down near the bottom of every story, the paper that has trumpeted this story the most admits there’s no evidence.

 

So, here’s the way this thing obviously went down.

 

Obama’s team first tried to get a broad FISA warrant to investigate the Russian fantasy. The judge turned it down.

 

It tried again with a narrower FISA warrant request. The judge turned it down.

 

Then it tried a third time, and the judge approved it in October. Coincidentally, that is the exact time Trump says the wiretapping began.

 

Not one of these big news organizations will tell you that.

 

It’s the attorney general who would request such wiretap authorizations for heavy-duty, politically charged requests such as this – not that any have ever been requested or authorized in the history of the republic.

 

Do news organizations really want to be covering up stuff like this? Don’t they understand the same tactics can be used against them? Obama, or (wink-wink) Lynch, just set the precedent.

 

Nixon never did anything remotely like this – and he was forced from office as a result. Obama or Lynch could well be prosecuted by the Trump administration. And one or both probably should be.

 

Misuse of FISA statutes is a clear violation of the law.

 

FISA can only be used for “foreign intelligence information” as the basis for surveillance to protect the U.S. against a “grave” or “hostile” attack, war-like sabotage or international terror.

 

Does anyone suggest such a thing with regard to Russian hacks?

 

That’s what makes this scandal, pardon the expression, “bigger than Watergate.”

 

Out of more than 35,000 FISA court requests, only 12 have ever been rejected. But two out of three requested by the Obama administration to investigate the Russia deal were. What does that tell you?

 

It tells me this was a political fishing expedition to build a case against Trump if or when he beat Hillary.

 

Since the election, the hysteria over Russia’s role in the election has only increased exponentially.

 

And that’s why:

 

1. I believe Trump.

2. I don’t believe Obama.

3. I don’t believe the “fake news cartel,” which is all in for finding the elusive Trump-Russia link.

 

What we’ve got here at first glance is a prima facie case for “bigger and worse than Watergate.”

 

But the Washington Post and New York Times have already signaled they won’t be investigating. They are already publishing front-page editorials that stake out a rather shrill “see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil” approach.

 

Was it legal? No.

 

Was it ethical in the American political tradition? No.

 

Is it one of the most dangerous developments in American political history? Yes.

 

+++

The Obama Camp’s Disingenuous Denials on FISA Surveillance of Trump 

 

By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY

Originally NATIONAL REVIEW

March 5, 2017

Israpundit

Posted by Ted Belman

 

President Trump’s early Saturday morning tweeting has exploded to the forefront an uncovered scandal I’ve been talking about since early January (including in this weekend’s column): The fact that the Obama Justice Department and the FBI investigated associates of Donald Trump, and likely Trump himself, in the heat of the presidential campaign.

 

To summarize, reporting indicates that, prior to June 2016, the Obama Justice Department and FBI considered a criminal investigation of Trump associates, and perhaps Trump himself, based on concerns about connections to Russian financial institutions. Preliminary poking around indicated that there was nothing criminal involved. Rather than shut the case down, though, the Obama Justice Department converted it into a national-security investigation under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). FISA allows the government, if it gets court permission, to conduct electronic surveillance (which could include wiretapping, monitoring of e-mail, and the like) against those it alleges are “agents of a foreign power.”
FISA applications and the evidence garnered from them are classified – i.e., we would not know about any of this unless someone had leaked classified information to the media, a felony. In June, the Obama Justice Department submitted an application that apparently “named” Trump in addition to some of his associates.

 

As I have stressed, it is unclear whether “named” in this context indicates that Trump himself was cited as a person the Justice Department was alleging was a Russian agent whom it wanted to surveil. It could instead mean that Trump’s name was merely mentioned in an application that sought to conduct surveillance on other alleged Russian agents. President Trump’s tweets on Saturday claimed that “President Obama . . . tapp[ed] my phones[,]” which makes it more likely that Trump was targeted for surveillance, rather than merely mentioned in the application.

 

In any event, the FISA court reportedly turned down the Obama Justice Department’s request, which is notable: The FISA court is notoriously solicitous of government requests to conduct national-security surveillance (although, as I’ve noted over the years, the claim by many that it is a rubber-stamp is overblown).

 

Not taking no for an answer, the Obama Justice Department evidently returned to the FISA court in October 2016, the critical final weeks of the presidential campaign. This time, the Justice Department submitted a narrowly tailored application that did not mention Trump. The court apparently granted it, authorizing surveillance of some Trump associates.

 

It is unknown whether that surveillance is still underway, but the New York Times has identified – again, based on illegal leaks of classified information – at least three of its targets: Paul Manafort (the former Trump campaign chairman who was ousted in August), and two others whose connection to the Trump campaign was loose at best, Manafort’s former political-consulting business partner Roger Stone, and investor Carter Page.

 

The Times report (from mid-January) includes a lot of heavy breathing about potential ties between the Trump campaign and Russia; but it ultimately concedes that the government’s FISA investigation may have nothing to do with Trump, the campaign, or alleged Russian efforts to interfere in the U.S. election by hacking e-mail accounts. Trump’s tweets on Saturday prompted some interesting “denials” from the Obama camp. These can be summarized in the statement put out by Obama spokesman Kevin Lewis:

 

A cardinal rule of the Obama Administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice. As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.

 

This seems disingenuous on several levels. First, as Obama officials well know, under the FISA process, it is technically the FISA court that “orders” surveillance. And by statute, it is the Justice Department, not the White House, that represents the government in proceedings before the FISA court. So, the issue is not whether Obama or some member of his White House staff “ordered” surveillance of Trump and his associates.

 

The issues are (a) whether the Obama Justice Department sought such surveillance authorization from the FISA court, and (b) whether, if the Justice Department did that, the White House was aware of or complicit in the decision to do so. Personally, given the explosive and controversial nature of the surveillance request we are talking about – an application to wiretap the presidential candidate of the opposition party, and some of his associates, during the heat of the presidential campaign, based on the allegation that the candidate and his associates were acting as Russian agents – it seems to me that there is less than zero chance that could have happened without consultation between the Justice Department and the White House. [Blog Editor’s bold text]

 

Second, the business about never ordering surveillance against American citizens is nonsense. Obama had American citizens killed in drone operations. Obviously, that was not done in the U.S. or through the FISA process; it was done overseas, under the president’s commander-in-chief and statutory authority during wartime.

 

But the notion that Obama would never have an American subject to surveillance is absurd. Third, that brings us to a related point: FISA national-security investigations are not like criminal investigations. They are more like covert intelligence operations – which presidents personally sign off on. [Blog Editor’s bold text]

 

The intention is not to build a criminal case; it is to gather information about what foreign powers are up, particularly on U.S. soil. One of the points in FISA proceedings’ being classified is that they remain secret – the idea is not to prejudice an American citizen with publication of the fact that he has been subjected to surveillance even though he is not alleged to have engaged in criminal wrongdoing. Consequently, there is nothing wrong, in principle, with a president’s ordering national-security surveillance of a potential foreign agent who may be helping a foreign power threaten American security and interests.

 

That is one of the president’s main jobs – there would be something wrong if a president, who truly believed the nation was threatened by a foreign power, failed to take action. Prior to FISA’s enactment in 1978, courts had no formal role in the surveillance of foreign agents for national-security purposes – it was a unilateral executive-branch function. Beginning with the Carter administration during FISA’s enactment, it has been the position of presidential administrations of both parties that, despite the enactment of the FISA process, the president maintains inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution to order surveillance even in the absence of court authorization. [Blog Editor’s bold text]

 

Of course, doing so is controversial, as President Bush learned after he directed the NSA to conduct warrantless wiretapping of suspected terrorists following the 9/11 attacks. Nevertheless, we should not allow the statements of Obama spokesmen to confuse us here. The Justice Department and FBI have two missions: (a) criminal law-enforcement and (b) national security. It would be scandalous (though probably not constitutional unconstitutional) for a president to interfere in the law-enforcement mission by ordering the Justice Department to prosecute someone outside its normal procedures.

 

But it would not be inappropriate  e–ven though civil libertarians would raise holy hell — for the president to direct warrantless surveillance against a target, even an American citizen, if the president truly believed that target was functioning as an agent of a foreign power threatening U.S. interests. To be clear, there does not seem to be any evidence, at least that I know of, to suggest that any surveillance or requests to conduct surveillance against then-candidate Donald Trump was done outside the FISA process.

 

Nevertheless, whether done inside or outside the FISA process, it would be a scandal of Watergate dimension if a presidential administration sought to conduct, or did conduct, national-security surveillance against the presidential candidate of the opposition party. Unless there was some powerful evidence that the candidate was actually acting as an agent of a foreign power, such activity would amount to a pretextual use of national-security power for political purposes. That is the kind of abuse that led to Richard Nixon’s resignation in lieu of impeachment. [Blog Editor’s bold text]

 

Moreover, it cannot be glossed over that, at the very time it appears the Obama Justice Department was seeking to surveil Trump and/or his associates on the pretext that they were Russian agents, the Obama Justice Department was also actively undermining and ultimately closing without charges the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton despite significant evidence of felony misconduct that threatened national security. This appears to be extraordinary, politically motivated abuse of presidential power.  [I have updated the post, as indicated, to reflect that I meant “not unconstitutional” in a passage in which I erroneously said “not constitutional.] -[Blog Editor’s bold text]

__________________

Dem Propaganda & Deep State Coup?

John R. Houk

© March 6, 2017

_______________

SPYGATE: Mark Levin Provides The Timeline And Proof Of The Obama Administration Using Police Tactics Against Trump [VIDEO]

 

© 2017 NoisyRoom.net

______________

WAS OBAMA’S TAP OF TRUMP LEGAL, AMERICAN?

 

Copyright 2017 WND

_______________

The Obama Camp’s Disingenuous Denials on FISA Surveillance of Trump 

 

© 2005-2017 by Ted Belman. Some Rights Reserved. All views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the site owner or the rest of its participants.

 

Israpundit

 

About National Review

 

The Project – The Full Glenn Beck Documentary


February 22, 2014

 

I found this Glenn Beck produced documentary while doing a bit of research The Project which is an agenda formulated by the Muslim Brotherhood to take North America for Islam. You can find various links about this nefarious Muslim Brotherhood plan to erase American culture in the second half of the post “Islam is an Anti-American – Antichrist Religious Cult”. The second half of that post is where the emphasis on The Project is at.

 

The Glenn Beck documentary link at that post will take you to a disclose.tv version. Although disclose.tv had an embed code, my other blogs reject its usage because they seem to be dominated by an emphasis of Youtube usage. The good news is I found a Youtube version of the documentary and below you can watch the full version.

 

VIDEO: The Project parts 1-2, FULL video

 

Posted by usmc7242

Published Sep 30, 2012

 

The Project, by Glenn Beck, covers the infiltration of the United States government and our institutions by the Muslim Brotherhood.

http://www.theblaze.com/theproject/

In 2001, an inconspicuous manifesto now known as “The Project” was recovered during a raid in Switzerland: A manifesto that turned out to be a Muslim roadmap for infiltrating and defeating the West. Today, files containing evidence from the largest terror financing trial in U.S. history, which include details about “The Project”, are being withheld by the Department of Justice.

In an explosive two-part mini-series, TheBlaze documentary unit investigates how the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the American government and exposes how our nation’s safety is in jeopardy as a result of this dangerous government cover up.

________________________

The Blaze links to Part 1 and Part 2:

 

1)     The Project’ Part I — All Totalitarian Ideologies Are Threat to U.S.

 

2)     TheBlazeTV Unveils ‘The Project’ Part II: Civilization Jihad

 

The two above links also include text information preceding the documentaries.

 

JRH 2/22/14

Please Support NCCR

Foreign influence – Muslim Brotherhood and our leadership


John McCain Dhimmi

Senator John McCain the former GOP nominee for President and now more RINO than ever – is a hypocrite and ignorant when it comes to purist Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

McCain’s ignorance and hypocrisy are illustrated in his condemnation of Rep Michele Bachmann and her five cohorts for promoting an investigation of Muslim Brotherhood infiltration in the upper echelons of the US government. In particular McCain is hell bent on looking the other way on Huma Abedin’s connections via family and associations to the Muslim Brotherhood while simultaneously being Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s chief advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff.

 

I have posted on this before and even have linked to an Andrew McCarthy link exposing McCain. I should have posted the McCarthy thoughts and now I am taking that opportunity as it is cross posted on Stand Up America.

 

JRH 7/27/12 (Hat Tip Justin Smith)

Please Support NCCR

**********************************

Foreign influence – Muslim Brotherhood and our leadership

 

Posted by SUAadmin

July 21, 2012

Stand Up America

 

Editor’s Note – When our founding fathers were constructing our young nation, one of their greatest fears was allowing foreign influences into our leadership. They had learned valuable lessons from the failures of other nations and they realized that others would seek advantage in our infancy.

 

They knew all to well of the need to protect our new form of governance because it was the first of its kind, and as we know – it was, and is still, the best ever formed by man, despite its failings. Our sovereignty and liberty are rooted in unalienable rights, and to allow foreign influences, especially of a kind so diametrically opposed to our way of life is completely unacceptable.

 

Islam, in all its forms and manifestations is anathema to our very way of life. Its Shariya Laws are the tools of slavery, not freedom, and now their influence on us is creeping into all facets of our government and therefore, our way of life. To curry favor or act complicity with the Muslim Brotherhood, to allow their advice and counsel to sway our leadership is unjustifiable.

 

It is clear that our leadership, and a large majority of our nation just plain do not understand Islam. Those who have studied it deeply, who know its history and true nature have been sounding the alarm for a long time, yet we are largely met with politically correct, arrogant, ignorance. To not know your enemy is a recipe for disaster, and to countenance such activity is tantamount to treason.

 

At SUA – yes we do question Huma Abedin and those who defend her and the Muslim Brotherhood! Do not be fooled by the propaganda!

 

Huma Abedin & Hillary Clinton 2

 

Questions about Huma Abedin

A State Department adviser has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

By Andrew C. McCarthy – National Review

 

Der Spiegel pointed out the obvious: “A certain role of the Muslim Brotherhood in the transition process [to ‘democracy’] in Egypt seems acceptable to the Obama White House.” It was early February 2011, the moment when the uprising that would oust Hosni Mubarak was bubbling over in Tahrir Square. The prominent German newsmagazine figured, who better to ask about the Muslim Brotherhood than the American political establishment’s resident foreign-policy genius, John McCain?

 

So, the reporter asked him, does Obama’s tolerance of the Muslim Brotherhood “concern you”?

 

Senator Maverick shot back without hesitation: “It concerns me so much that I am unalterably opposed to it. I think it would be a mistake of historic proportions.”

 

Senator McCain elaborated that he was “deeply, deeply concerned that this whole movement [toward democracy] could be hijacked by radical Islamic extremists.” And what, he was specifically asked, “is your assessment of the Muslim Brotherhood”? McCain pulled no punches:

 

I think they are a radical group that, first of all, supports sharia law; that in itself is anti-democratic — at least as far as women are concerned. They have been involved with other terrorist organizations and I believe that they should be specifically excluded from any transition government.

 

In fact, so apprehensive was he over the Brotherhood and its sharia agenda that McCain was quick to brand Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel laureate, as a Brotherhood tool. Many of us watching developments at the time noted the apparent collusion between ElBaradei and the Brothers. McCain went farther: “Oh yeah, I think it’s very clear that the scenario is very likely he could be their front man.”

 

Senator Straight Talk reasoned that since ElBaradei appeared to be on the same page as the Brotherhood, and was being hailed as a potential Mubarak successor despite having “no following nor political influence in Egypt,” we should assume that he must be in cahoots with the Brotherhood. It did not matter that ElBaradei was a renowned international figure and an important leftist ally of President Obama’s. So pernicious was the threat posed by the Brotherhood that, in McCain’s considered opinion, you just had to assume the worst.

 

The Spiegel interview was classic McCain; the senator is never at a loss for bloviation. His professed anxiety, only a year ago, over the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as his blithe willingness to assume that ElBaradei must be an Islamist coconspirator, are worth remembering today. For the sage has suddenly decided that the Brothers — unapologetic Islamic supremacists who say outright that they are on a “grand jihad” to destroy America and the West — are a pretty swell lot, after all. Instead, McCain reserves his signature “shoot first, think later” ire for the target he has always preferred: conservatives.

 

The Arizonan took to the Senate floor this week to lambaste five conservative members of the House who, unlike McCain, are actually serious about addressing threats the Brotherhood poses to American interests. McCain’s bipartisan “Islamic democracy” promoters seem content to keep burning through taxpayer trillions until the Brotherhood is finally running every government in the Middle East. To the contrary, the House conservatives — Michele Bachmann (Minn.), Louie Gohmert (Texas), Trent Franks (Ariz.), Tom Rooney (Fla.), and Lynn Westmorland (Ga.) — have concluded that the Brotherhood needs to be regarded as the serious anti-American business that it is.

 

Toward that end, the quintet is justifiably concerned that the Brotherhood’s sharia agenda — the one to which McCain used to be “unalterably opposed” — is being abetted not just by some Nobel-toting Egyptian progressive, but by officials in highly sensitive positions inside the United States government.

 

One official about whom they raise questions is Huma Abedin, deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Ms. Abedin has been an aide since she interned at the White House in 1996 and was assigned to the then–first lady’s staff. The family tie for which she is best known is her husband, Anthony Weiner, the New York Democrat who resigned from Congress in disgrace last year. But it is Ms. Abedin’s parents and brother who have drawn the attention of the five House GOP members. They all have connections to the Muslim Brotherhood — the organization itself or prominent members thereof.

 

For pointing this out and merely asking the State Department’s inspector general to look into it and report back to Congress — which is part of the IG’s duties under the statute that created his position — McCain & Co. (i.e., his fans in the left-wing media and his admirers in the Republican establishment) are screaming “smear” and “McCarthyism.” McCain’s antipathy toward conservatives (except during election years) is an old story. And it is no secret that he has long been smitten by Mrs. Clinton, whose transnational-progressive leanings mirror his own.

 

The Maverick is also a man about town — towns like Tripoli. Back in 2009, you may recall, he was an honored guest in the compound of Libya’s dictator, Moammar Qaddafi — celebrating the former master terrorist as an important American ally against jihadist terror, helping to grease the wheels so the Obama administration could increase American aid that would bolster Qaddafi’s military. Yet in the blink of an eye, it seemed, McCain would later be railing that Qaddafi was a died-in-the-wool terrorist monster whose military had to be smashed by the United States — in an undeclared, unauthorized, unprovoked war, if necessary — so Libyans could be “free” to elect the Muslim Brotherhood and other assorted Islamic supremacists to their new Parliament.

 

But the point is that McCain gets around. And when he does, the State Department is often his escort. Between his globetrotting and his case of Hillary hauteur, the senator has gotten friendly over the years with Ms. Abedin, who is said to be smart, able, and quite charming. Ever the Maverick — chivalrous to a fault . . . at least when the damsel in distress is an exotic, progressive sharia-democracy devotee rather than a conservative national-security worrywart from Minnesota. McCain has leapt to Ms. Abedin’s defense against these vicious House troglodytes.

 

The senator’s tirade featured his trademark indignation, incoherence, and infatuation with immigrant success stories. (Ms. Abedin was born in Michigan, but no reason to let that get in the way of “what is best about America.”) McCain blasted Representative Bachmann and the others, falsely accusing them of doing to his friend Huma what he had actually done to ElBaradei, namely, implicating her as “part of a nefarious conspiracy.”

 

To the contrary, the House members have drawn no such conclusions. Instead, they have pointed out the State Department’s dramatic, Brotherhood-friendly policy shifts during Ms. Abedin’s tenure as a top adviser to the State Department’s boss. They have asked — completely consistent with national-security guidelines, to which I’ll come shortly — that an investigation into those policy shifts be undertaken.

 

That investigation would include an inquiry into whether Ms. Abedin’s family ties render her unsuitable for a position that involves access to classified information about the Brotherhood. The shrieks aside, this is not remotely unreasonable, nor is it an inquisition into Ms. Abedin’s decency and rectitude. When I was a prosecutor, the Justice Department would not have let me take a case that involved friends of my family. It’s not that they didn’t trust me; it’s that government is supposed to avoid the appearance of impropriety — legitimacy hinges on the public’s belief that actions are taken on merit, not burdened by palpable conflicts of interest.

 

Regarding Ms. Abedin’s family ties, McCain rebukes his House colleagues for alleging “that three members of Huma’s family are ‘connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations.’” “These sinister accusations,” he insisted, “rest solely on a few unspecified and unsubstantiated associations of members of Huma’s family.”

 

Now, I’m perfectly willing to believe that McCain may not know what the words “unspecified” and “unsubstantiated” mean. That, however, would not excuse his use of them in this context. The ties of Ms. Abedine’s father, mother, and brother to the Muslim Brotherhood are both specific and substantiated.

 

Ms. Abedin’s father, the late Syed Z. Abedin, was an Indian-born Islamic academic who founded the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs in Saudi Arabia. That institute was backed by the Muslim World League. As the Hudson Institute’s Zeyno Baran relates, the MWL was started by the Saudi government in 1962 “with Brotherhood members in key leadership positions.” It has served as the principal vehicle for the propagation of Islamic supremacism by the Saudis and the Brotherhood. That ideology fuels the “Islamic extremism” that, only a year ago, had McCain so worried that he thought allowing the Brotherhood into the Egyptian-government mix “would be a mistake of historic proportions.”

 

McCain’s frivolous retort is that Professor Abedin died 20 years ago. That would be a great point if someone were accusing Ms. Abedin of being in her father’s institute or the MWL. It is irrelevant when the question is whether it is reasonable to infer Islamist sympathies from her parents’ allegiances — not to make conclusive judgments about her, mind you, but to draw an inference that would merit deeper inquiry. That is standard fare in government background checks. Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s emir, has been out of the Brotherhood for more than 30 years. Does that mean the Brotherhood is now irrelevant to his ideological outlook, or to the sympathies of his close associates?

 

As it happens, the same MWL that supported Abedin père’s institute also helped the Brotherhood establish the Muslim Students Association. The MSA is the foundation of the Brotherhood’s American infrastructure, the gateway through which young Muslims join the Brotherhood after being steeped in the supremacist writings of Brotherhood theorists Hassan al-Banna (who founded the Brotherhood in the 1920s) and Sayyid Qutb (the animating influence of such jihadist eminences as Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden, and the “Blind Sheikh,” Omar Abdel Rahman).

 

Speaking of which, it was through the MSA that Egypt’s new president, Mohammed Morsi, joined the Muslim Brotherhood. He was studying engineering in California at the time, the early Eighties. By her own account, Morsi’s wife, Nagla Ali Mahmoud, also joined. She became a leading member of a cognate outfit known as “the Muslim Sisterhood.” And it is here that we get to Huma Abedin’s mother, the Pakistani-born academic Dr. Saleha Abedin.

 

Dr. Abedin, too, has been a member of the Muslim Sisterhood, “which is essentially nothing more than the female version of the Brotherhood,” according to Walid Shoebat, a former Brotherhood member who has renounced the organization. The Brotherhood is not only the font of Sunni supremacist ideology, it spearheads the international support network for Hamas, the terrorist organization that openly proclaims itself as the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch.

 

According to one report, Dr. Abedin has on occasion represented herself as a delegate of the MWL. Moreover, as William Jacobson documents at Legal Insurrection, Dr. Abedin has led the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child (IICWC), an Islamist organization that hews to the positions of Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Brotherhood’s leading sharia jurist. Like Brotherhood entities, the IICWC defends such practices as female genital mutilation and child marriage, which find support in Islamic law and scripture.

 

Sheikh Qaradawi, of course, is the Brotherhood eminence who promises that Islam “will conquer Europe, we will conquer America.” He is a vigorous supporter of Hamas, and his fatwas lionize suicide terrorism — including the killing of Americans in Iraq. It is Qaradawi who brings us to Huma Abedin’s brother, Dr. Hassan Abedin. He has been a fellow at the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies in Great Britain. Contemporaneously, Sheikh Qaradawi was a member of the Oxford Center’s board of trustees. So was Omar Naseef, onetime secretary-general of the MWL as well as the founder of the Rabita Trust — an Islamic “charity” notorious for funding jihadists and for having an al-Qaeda founder (Wael Hamza Julaidan) as one of its chief executives.

 

These connections are not contrived or weightless — like when the Left wanted to keep Samuel Alito off the Supreme Court because, 40 years ago, he was a member of “Concerned Alumni of Princeton.” Of course, knowing members of an organization whose goals include conquest of the West and destruction of Israel is not a crime. Nor is it a crime to have close relatives who are either members of, or associated with members of, such an organization. Again, however, no one is accusing Huma Abedin of a crime.

 

The five House conservatives, instead, are asking questions that adults responsible for national security should feel obliged to ask: In light of Ms. Abedin’s family history, is she someone who ought to have a security clearance, particularly one that would give her access to top-secret information about the Brotherhood? Is she, furthermore, someone who may be sympathetic to aspects of the Brotherhood’s agenda, such that Americans ought to be concerned that she is helping shape American foreign policy?

 

Now, Senator McCain is no stranger to smear. No need to confirm that with Mr. ElBaradei; we’ve watched for years as he has slandered, for example, critics of his advocacy for illegal aliens as “nativists” seeking to reprise Jim Crow laws. Nevertheless, since McCain purports to be a tireless guardian of our security, one would think he’d appreciate the distinction between a smear, on the one hand, and a routine application of security-clearance standards, on the other.

 

The State Department is particularly wary when it comes to the category of “foreign influence” — yes, it is a significant enough concern to warrant its own extensive category in background investigations. No criminal behavior need be shown to deny a security clearance; access to classified information is not a right, and reasonable fear of “divided loyalties” is more than sufficient for a clearance to be denied.

 

The guidelines probe ties to foreign countries and organizations because hostile elements could “target United States citizens to obtain protected information” or could be “associated with a risk of terrorism” — note: The Brotherhood checks both these boxes. Thus, when someone is proposed for a sensitive position, it is necessary to consider “conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying.” These, the State Department tells us, include “contact with a foreign family member, business or professional associate, friend or other person who is a citizen or resident in a foreign country if that contact creates a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, pressure, or coercion.”

 

Furthermore, in light of the Brotherhood’s well-known abhorrence of the United States, it is also pertinent that State’s guidelines raise alarms if a person seeking access to classified information has an “association or sympathy” with people who seek to overthrow our government, or even with people who just seek to prevent Americans from exercising their constitutional rights. The Brotherhood does not just aim to upend our system; it would restrict our rights, such as free expression, to the extent they contradict sharia.

 

In his diatribe, McCain speciously asserted that the GOP conservatives had failed to cite “an action, a decision, or a public position that Huma has taken while at the State Department” that showed she was either “promoting anti-American activities within our government” or having a “direct impact” on harmful policies. Of course, to assess a person’s fitness for a sensitive position, background investigators are not restricted to asking whether someone has committed some transgression. Their main job is to find out whether there are circumstances and competing allegiances that could tempt someone to take positions or actions that could harm the United States. That is why, for example, we have hearings before we confirm federal judges — we don’t just hand them a gavel and hope for the best.

 

In addition, as McCain knows, Ms. Abedin is an adviser, not a policymaker. She gives advice to the secretary of state. Unless you were in the room with the two of them, you’d never be able to demonstrate what “direct impact” the adviser was having. Again, that’s why people are supposed to be vetted before they get these sensitive positions and before they get access to the nation’s secrets.

 

Since Mrs. Clinton has been secretary of state, with Ms. Abedin as one of her top advisers, the State Department has strongly supported abandoning the federal government’s prior policy against dealing with the Muslim Brotherhood. State, furthermore, has embraced a number of Muslim Brotherhood positions that undermine both American constitutional rights and our alliance with Israel. To name just a few manifestations of this policy sea change:

 

§  The State Department has an emissary in Egypt who trains operatives of the Brotherhood and other Islamist organizations in democracy procedures.

 

§  The State Department announced that the Obama administration would be “satisfied” with the election of a Muslim Brotherhood–dominated government in Egypt.

 

§  Secretary Clinton personally intervened to reverse a Bush-administration ruling that barred Tariq Ramadan, grandson of the Brotherhood’s founder and son of one of its most influential early leaders, from entering the United States.

 

§  The State Department has collaborated with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a bloc of governments heavily influenced by the Brotherhood, in seeking to restrict American free-speech rights in deference to sharia proscriptions against negative criticism of Islam.

 

§  The State Department has excluded Israel, the world’s leading target of terrorism, from its “Global Counterterrorism Forum,” a group that brings the United States together with several Islamist governments, prominently including its co-chair, Turkey — which now finances Hamas and avidly supports the flotillas that seek to break Israel’s blockade of Hamas. At the forum’s kickoff, Secretary Clinton decried various terrorist attacks and groups; but she did not mention Hamas or attacks against Israel — in transparent deference to the Islamist governments, which echo the Brotherhood’s position that Hamas is not a terrorist organization and that attacks against Israel are not terrorism.

 

§  The State Department and the Obama administration waived congressional restrictions in order to transfer $1.5 billion dollars in aid to Egypt after the Muslim Brotherhood’s victory in the parliamentary elections.

 

 

§  The State Department and the Obama administration waived congressional restrictions in order to transfer millions of dollars in aid to the Palestinian territories notwithstanding that Gaza is ruled by the terrorist organization Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch.

 

§  The State Department and the administration recently hosted a contingent from Egypt’s newly elected parliament that included not only Muslim Brotherhood members but a member of the Islamic Group (Gama’at al Islamia), which is formally designated as a foreign terrorist organization — so that providing it with material support is a serious federal crime. The State Department has refused to provide Americans with information about the process by which it issued a visa to a member of a designated terrorist organization, about how the members of the Egyptian delegation were selected, or about what security procedures were followed before the delegation was allowed to enter our country.

 

§  On a just-completed trip to Egypt, Secretary Clinton pressured General Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, head of the military junta currently governing the country, to surrender power to the newly elected parliament, which is dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, and the newly elected president, Mohamed Morsi, who is a top Brotherhood official. She also visited with Morsi; immediately after his victory, Morsi proclaimed that his top priorities included pressuring the United States to release the Blind Sheikh. Quite apart from the Brotherhood’s self-proclaimed “grand jihad” to destroy the United States, which the Justice Department proved in federal court during the 2007–8 Holy Land Foundation prosecution, the Brotherhood’s supreme guide, Mohammed Badie, publicly called for jihad against the United States in an October 2010 speech. After it became clear the Brotherhood would win the parliamentary election, Badie said the victory was a stepping stone to “the establishment of a just Islamic caliphate.”

 

This is not an exhaustive account of Obama-administration coziness with the Muslim Brotherhood. It is just some of the lowlights.

 

Senator McCain is an incorrigible vacillator. It is to be expected that he has “evolved” from last year’s claimed opposition to the Brotherhood to a new position, more aligned with that of his friend Secretary Clinton and the Obama administration. Some of us, however, really are “unalterably opposed” to the Muslim Brotherhood. The five House conservatives are asking questions to which the State Department’s own guidelines, to say nothing of common sense, demand answers. Answers not just about Huma Abedin but, far more significantly, about the government’s policy toward virulently anti-American Islamists. Americans deserve nothing less — even if the usual GOP spaghetti spines would prefer to give them nothing, period.

 

— Andrew C. McCarthy is the author, most recently, of The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.

______________________

The Stand Up America US Project (SUA) was founded in 2005 by MG Paul E. Vallely, US Army (Ret), as a multi-media organization that involves publishing, radio, television, speaking engagements, web site, writing articles for publication as well as books.

 

This site is meant as a resource for education, based upon the values and principles set forth by our founding fathers. It is our goal to inform, clarify, and speak truth to power.

 

We are a network of patriotic Americans from all walks of life including former members of the military, former federal, state, and local employees of government, analysts, writers, world leaders, and our group extends across the globe.

 

Copyright © 2010 – 2012 Stand Up America US. All rights reserved.