you ever asked yourself why, despite more than ten years of efforts
–involving, among other things, the loss of thousands of lives in wars
in Iraq and Afghanistan, well-over a trillion dollars spent, countless
man-years wasted waiting in airport security lines and endless efforts
to ensure that no offense is given to seemingly permanently aggrieved
Muslim activists – are we no closer to victory in the so-called “war on
terror” than we were on 9/11? Thankfully, we have been able to kill some dangerous bad guys.
The sad truth of the matter is that, by almost any other measure, the
prospect of victory is becoming more remote by the day. And no one seems
able to explain the reason. In an effort to provide the missing answer, on April 24, the
Center for Security Policy is making available via the Internet a new,
free ten-part video course called “The Muslim Brotherhood in America:
The Enemy Within.” This course connects the proverbial dots, drawing on a
wealth of publicly available data and first-hand accounts to present a
picture that has, for over a decade, been obscured, denied and
suppressed: America faces in addition to the threat of violent jihad
another, even more toxic danger – a stealthy and pre-violent form of
warfare aimed at destroying our constitutional form of democratic
government and free society. The Muslim Brotherhood is the prime-mover
behind this seditious campaign, which it calls “civilization jihad.”
Part 1: The Threat Doctrine of Shariah & the Muslim Brotherhood
The first section of this briefing explains what shariah is according
to the authorities and institutions of Islam and as promoted most
aggressively by an organization called the Muslim Brotherhood.
Key Points of Part 1
Shariah is a totalitarian, brutally repressive and supremacist doctrine.
Shariah is principally about power, not faith.
Accordingly, adherence towards the political end of overthrowing the
U.S. government is seditious and must be prosecuted, not protected religious practice.
The Muslim Brotherhood is the prime-mover worldwide behind the
effort to impose shariah everywhere, through stealthy means until such
time as violence can be used to achieve the creation of a global
caliphate to rule in accordance with shariah.
The Brotherhood is not a non-violent group. Rather, in most countries where it operates including the United States, it is in a pre-violent phase.
Discussion Topics for Part 1
Some Muslims believe that it is God’s will that they live under
shariah and compel everybody else to do so. If they argue that such
beliefs are part of their religious practice, should they have the right
under the U.S. Constitution to act on them?
Do you think shariah is consistent with the Constitution? If not,
does it matter that some people would like to bring it here as long as
they are not very numerous or successful?
If Muslim men wish to treat women in ways that reflect their
inferiority with respect to their marital, property and other rights,
should that be okay in the United States?
Can the United States safely “do business with” the Muslim Brotherhood?
Should the United States help the Muslim Brotherhood come to power or consolidate it in the Middle East? How about elsewhere?
Would you like to live under shariah law? What difference do you think it would make in your life?
Do you think we should take seriously those who say they seek to impose shariah worldwide?
Or would we be better served by trying to deny them the attention they seem to crave?
Part 2: The Brotherhood’s ‘Civilization Jihad’ in America
The Muslim Brotherhood’s strategy for realizing its mission of
“destroying Western civilization from within” was described in an
undated 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document entitled “Phases of the World
Underground Movement Plan.” In this part, we investigate what they’re
doing to implement it.
Key Points in Part 2
According to the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategic plan, the group’s
mission in America is a “civilization-jihadist process…a kind of grand
jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within” by
our handsand the hands of the believers “so that God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”
A list of 29 Muslim-American groups was attached to that plan
identifying them as “our organizations and organizations of our
friends.” Even today, 21 years later, most of the preeminent
Muslim-American advocacy and public policy entities are on that list.
The Muslim Brotherhood’s civilization jihad is being pursued through
stealthy means involving the penetration and subversion of this
country’s civil society and governing institutions.
A central feature of the stealthy, pre-violent jihad is what the
military calls “information dominance” – it helps the Muslim Brotherhood
keep us ignorant of the true nature of the threat they pose and the
progress they are making in bringing shariah to America.
Where does the term “civilization jihad” come from, and what is meant by it?
What evidence is there that the Muslim Brotherhood is associated
with many prominent Muslim-American organizations – and what
significance do you give to such associations?
Were you surprised to learn of the nature and advanced state of the Brotherhood’s stealthy jihadist techniques?
What is the significance of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation?
Characterize the nature and implications of the guidelines
established by the Society of Professional Journalists in October 2011.
What is Shariah-Compliance Finance and what does its presence in our
capital markets and government holdings imply for the civilization
jihad’s objective of destroying us from within by our own hand?
Part 3: Brotherhood Influence Operations Against ‘Policy Groups’: Conservatives & the GOP
With this grounding in the nature of shariah, the goals and
activities of the Muslim Brotherhood to impose it worldwide and an
introduction to the latter’s civilization jihad against the United
States, let’s take a closer look at one of the Ikhwan’s most successful
influence operations: its penetration and manipulation of the Republican
Party and the conservative movement in America.
Key Points in Part 3
Starting with the Clinton Administration, a top Muslim Brotherhood
operative – Abdurahman Alamoudi – succeeded in penetrating the top
reaches of the U.S. government. He was, among other things, given the
responsibility for recruiting, training and credentialing chaplains for
the U.S. military and prison system.
In 1998, Alamoudi launched what amounted to a Muslim Brotherhood
front organization, the Islamic Free Market Institute, for the purpose
of achieving comparable access to and influence with the Republicans and
He was enabled in this by the front organization’s founding chairman: anti-tax activist Grover Norquist.
In addition to al Qaeda financier Alamoudi, Norquist helped
mainstream in the Bush campaign and/or administration five other Muslims
with extensive ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. They were: the Islamic
Institute’s Khalid Saffuri, CAIR’s Nihad Awad, Palestinian Jihad’s Sami
al-Arian, the Fiqh Council’s Muzzamil Siddiqi and Suhail Khan, a former
staffer for Rep. Tom Campbell of California.
The opportunity thus afforded to these influence operators had a
pronounced and deleterious impact on the U.S. government’s
characterization of and policies and strategies towards the so-called
“War on Terror.”
Should we be concerned that chaplains in the U.S. military and
prison system have been recruited, trained and credentialed, initially
by Abdurahman Alamoudi and subsequently by the Islamic Society of North
America (ISNA), its subsidiaries and operatives? If so, why?
Why do you think Grover Norquist became involved with Alamoudi in launching the Islamic Free Market Institute?
If four federal judges have found that there were grounds to list
the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and ISNA as unindicted
co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation Hamas money-laundering
trial, should the U.S. government still be using them as interlocutors
with the Muslim community?
Do you think the access afforded individuals with ties to the Muslim
Brotherhood had an impact on Bush administration characterization of
and policy with respect to the war unleashed on 9/11?
Should anybody be held accountable for affording two individuals
subsequently convicted of terrorism-related crimes – Alamoudi and Sami
al-Arian – access to Candidate George W. Bush and, subsequently, to his
Should the United States be able to use so-called “secret evidence”
to deport illegal aliens while safeguarding classified information and
the sources and methods by which it is obtained?
Part 4: Suhail Khan, A Case Study in Influence Operations
If we are to understand the full nature of the threat posed by the
likes of Suhail Khan, we need to examine the Khan case study in closer
detail. We’ll explore both Khan’s extensive ties to the Muslim
Brotherhood and those he has cultivated in his own right for decades,
including what he’s said in public about those ties. Then, we’ll take
stock of the real service he has performed for the Islamist cause, both
in the past and ongoing.
Key Points in Part 4
Suhail Khan was one of the Muslim political activists with
longstanding personal and professional ties to the Brotherhood who
gained access to the Bush 2000 campaign and served in the George W. Bush
administration, thanks to the patronage of Grover Norquist.
In his capacity as the de facto Muslim gatekeeper in the Office of
Public Liaison under senior Bush advisor Karl Rove and then as an
assistant in the personal office of the Secretary of Transportation,
Khan had, at a minimum, an opportunity to facilitate the penetration of
Both during his time in government service and subsequently, Khan
has been deeply engaged in agendas championed by the Muslim Brotherhood
and its friends.
He has been caught repeatedly engaging in taqiyya – lying for the faith.
The fact that Suhail Khan received a security clearance during his
time in government is an indictment of the clearance process, not
evidence that his background is problem-free.
Suhail Khan has deep family and personal ties to some of the most
important Muslim-American organizations in America. Do you find
persuasive his denials that those groups are associated with the Muslim
Brotherhood or that it is even present in the United States?
Should we be concerned that Suhail Khan in a 1999 address to a
Muslim Brotherhood audience extolled Muslims’ “love of death more than
our oppressors love life” and his declaration that he had “dedicated his
life to the ummah”?
If Suhail Khan is, in fact, a Muslim Brotherhood operative, should
we be concerned that he worked in the Bush White House and
If Suhail Khan received a security clearance, shouldn’t that allay any concerns about his service in such roles?
Describe the difference between being a Muslim activist and being a
Muslim political activist, and how does Suhail Khan fulfill these
If Suhail Khan is, indeed, a Muslim Brotherhood operative, should it
be of concern that he is a lobbyist in Washington for a major American
Should the United States remove “impediments to zakat,” as Suhail
Khan wants, if the practical effect would be to remove legal barriers
currently in place to material support for terror?
Isn’t “interfaith dialogue” of the kind promoted by Suhail Khan with
his trip for government officials and prominent Muslim figures to
Auschwitz a good thing?
Part 5: The Organizations Islamists Are Using to Subvert the Right
The next part of this briefing offers some illustrative examples of
the myriad ways in which Norquist and his team are still very actively
and purposefully promoting the Islamist agenda — with considerable, and
Key Points in Part 5
With the sponsorship and assistance of Grover Norquist, a variety of organizations ostensibly on the Right have been – and are continuing to be – put at the service of Islamists. These include:
Americans for Tax Reform (ATR)
Islamic Free Market Institute (II)
The ‘Center-Right’ Coalition (the ‘Wednesday Meeting’)
The Conservative Inclusion Coalition
The Center-Right Coalition “franchises” and sponsored meetings around the country
The American Conservative Defense Alliance (ACDA)
Norquist has lent his conservative political credentials to
Red-Green coalitions made up of radical and other leftists and Muslim
Brotherhood front groups with whom they routinely make common cause to
the detriment of U.S. security, constitutional freedoms and other
Norquist has even worked on behalf of the Islamic Republic of Iran
through one such Leftist-Islamist group, the Coalition for a New
American Policy for Iran, founded in his offices.
What is your reaction to Paul Weyrich’s statement that “It’s very
possible some of the Muslims want to establish a fifth column in this
What do you think of the idea that the U.S. Constitution as the
“supreme law of the land” is outdated and that we should allow foreign
laws – including, but not limited to, shariah – to be used to adjudicate
disputes in our courts? Should that be the case even in circumstances
where doing so would deny American citizens constitutional rights?
Should we be concerned that Grover Norquist continues to build
infrastructure and utilize it to advance agendas that are favored by the
Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists?
Does it serve American interests to decline to aid opposition
elements in Iran, to resist sanctions on the regime and foreclose the
option of military action to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon?
Are you concerned about coalitions involving radical leftists and
Islamists? What do you make of a prominent conservative consorting
with, in some cases founding and otherwise promoting their agendas?
In this part, we consider how several individuals with ties to the
Muslim Brotherhood or other Islamists have been groomed to run for
office as Republicans. The careers of Grover Norqust proteges Kamal
Nawash, Faisal Gill, and Imad ‘David’ Ramadan are given close scrutiny.
Key Points in Part 6
Grover Norquist has helped a number of Muslim-American organizations
and individuals associated with the Muslim Brotherhood adopt the
coloration of conservatives and Republicans.
At one point, one of the founders of a group styling itself Muslims
for America described how Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform was
“looking for Muslim leaders, state-by-state, to participate within their
monthly meetings, which also serve as political hotbeds for creating relations with top political leaders and Muslims.”
The Course examines the backgrounds and records to date of three such Islamists. Two of them, Kamal Nawash and Faisal Gill,
failed to achieve electoral success, due in part to untimely
revelations of their ties to convicted terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi. A
third Norquist-backed Muslim candidate, Imad “David” Ramadan, however, was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates in November 2011 by a 50-vote margin.
The key to Ramadan’s success seems to have been not only Norquist’s
mentoring and networking but extensive and generous campaign donations
he made with funds generated offshore but of unknown provenance to GOP
politicians and organizations, a number of whom dutifully endorsed the
candidate – ignoring or dismissing evidence of his problematic past and
Is it fair, let alone prudent, to judge people by the company they
keep? At what point should a line be drawn on “guilt by association”?
Specifically, should people with associated with the Muslim
Brotherhood, shariah and/or Islamist agendas be encouraged to run for
public office in the United States?
Should Republican leaders be concerned that they expose themselves
to political liabilities if they endorse candidates that have such
Is it “racist,” “bigoted” or “Islamophobic” to probe a Muslim
candidate’s history of family ties to Lebanese intelligence, the sources
of his personal wealth or the extensive uses of such wealth to secure
access to and endorsements from prominent political figures?
Do you agree with former Department of Homeland Security Inspector
General Clark Ervin who asked, “Should anyone even remotely connected to
terrorism be employed by Homeland Security in any capacity, especially
the ultrasensitive area of intelligence and infrastructure protection?”
Building infrastructure and running candidates helps with the third
part of Grover Norquist’s ongoing Islamist influence operation:
advancing the agendas of the civilization jihadists or, at a minimum,
promoting agendas that serve the Islamists’ interests. In this part, we
take a look at some of those initiatives, including opposition a host of
policies that keep America safe.
Key Points in Part 7
Before, during and after the Bush ’43 administration, Grover
Norquist has been associated with and often played a leading role in
promoting various agenda items favored by the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran
and other Islamists. These have included:
Endorsing political and legislative initiatives
Attacking critics of shariah
Opposing ‘American Laws for American Courts’
Helping the Iranian regime
Making common cause with the ‘Red-Green axis’
Using his anti-tax campaigner’s access to open doors for the Muslim Brotherhood
Norquist’s activities fit the profile of a classic influence operation involving:
The recruiting of ‘Agents of Influence’ and ‘Useful Idiots’
Employing such individuals to insinuate trusted personnel
Burrowing into various targeted institutions and communities through friendships and alliances
Credentialing Islamist operatives as members and, if possible, as leaders of such institutions and communities
Using such leadership platforms and positions of influence “inside the wire” to fracture and isolate the targeted community
Should law enforcement agencies be able to use for the purpose of
preventing terrorism the sorts of surveillance and investigative tools
authorized for counter-drug and other efforts to counter illegal
activity? As this is the principal purpose – and involves the most
controversial elements – of the Patriot Act, do you support it?
Should shariah-adherent Muslims be allowed to build a mosque and “cultural center” adjacent to Ground Zero?
Is it advisable, under present and foreseeable circumstances, to
reduce dramatically the size and capabilities of the U.S. military or to
leave America’s borders insecure?
Should the United States distance itself from Israel and pursue engagement with the Iranian regime?
Knowing what you do about the policies promoted by Grover Norquist –
opposition to the Patriot Act, favoring the Ground Zero mosque, sharply
reducing the defense budget, hostility towards Israel and promoting the
Iranian regime’s party line – are you concerned that he is, according
to “60 Minutes,” “the most powerful conservative man in Washington”?
Do you find persuasive the evidence provided that Grover Norquist
has been and is now running a classic influence operation against the
Republican Party, conservative movement and U.S. government?
The Obama administration has greatly exacerbated the penetration of
the U.S. government achieved during the George W. Bush administration.
This part of the course will concentrate on illustrative examples of
Muslim Brotherhood-associated individuals who have been allowed access
to – and, in some cases, given positions In the Obama administration.
This part is a case study of Rashad Hussain, Huma Abedin, Daliah
Mogahed, Kifa Mustapha, Momamed Elibiary, and Mohamed Magid. As we will
see, taken together, such people and policy initiatives have advanced
considerably the Muslim Brotherhood’s civilization jihad against the
United States, here at home and overseas.
Key Findings in Part 8
The precedents, personnel and policies promoted during the George W.
Bush administration have metastasized dramatically under his successor.
Some individuals with close personal and professional ties to the
Muslim Brotherhood have been appointed to senior and influential
positions in the Obama administration. Others have been given access in
more informal advisory roles.
Six of this Islamist cohort are profiled in the course: Special
Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation Rashad Hussein; Deputy
Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Huma Abedein;
Presidential advisor Dalia Mogahed; FBI Citizen’s Academy graduate Kifah
Mustafa; Homeland Security Advisory Committee Member Mohamed Elibiary
and Homeland Security Countering Violent Extremism Working Group Member
Such individuals have clearly had an impact on U.S. policy under
President Obama in ways that advance the Muslim Brotherhood’s
civilization jihad and the efforts of other Islamists to compel our
submission to shariah.
What is a hafiz of the Quran and what are the implications of one serving in a senior position in the U.S. government?
Should the fact that an individual has family members in prominent
positions with Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated organization preclude them
from serving in the U.S. government?
Can shariah-adherent Muslims honestly swear to “uphold and defend
the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic”? Is it realistic to expect them to fulfill that oath?
What are the implications of the President of the United States
taking advice from a woman who believes “The majority of women around
the world associate gender justice, or justice for women, with sharia
Should individuals identified as unindicted co-conspirators in
terrorism financing be precluded from participating in such community
outreach initiatives as the FBI’s “citizen academies”?
Should a Muslim member of the Department of Homeland Security’s
Advisory Committee who has been given a security clearance be held to
the same standards for safeguarding classified information as others
with such access?
Should membership in and leadership of the largest Muslim
Brotherhood front in the United States – the Islamic Society of North
America – disqualify someone from serving in official or advisory
capacities in the federal or any state government?
In the closing days of the 2008 presidential campaign, Democratic
candidate Barack Obama declared that he was poised to begin
“fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” He has
certainly done so with respect to policies favored by Islamists. This
part is a two-hour deep drill-down into the disastrous policies of the
Obama White House, its State Department, Defense Department, Justice
Department, Department of Homeland Security, and more.
Key Findings in Part 9
The conduct of seven key federal agencies suggests the considerable
success of the Muslim Brotherhood in destroying us from within by our
own hands – starting with the policies and directives emanating from the
Oval Office and elsewhere in the White House complex.
Examples of such evidence include:
White House: Promulgating a self-defeating
“National Strategy for Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent
Extremism in the United States” that effectively guarantees Muslim
Brotherhood fronts a say, if not a veto, on policy and its implementation
Director of National Intelligence: Characterizing
the Muslim Brotherhood as a “largely secular group” that has “eschewed
violence” and has “no overarching agenda, at least internationally”
State Department: Granting unconditional and in one lump-sum payment $1.5 billion to the Muslim Brotherhood-controlled government in Egypt
Justice Department: Purging FBI and other training
materials about “countering violent extremism” that Muslim Brothers and
their leftist allies deem “offensive”
Defense Department: Pursuing a Counter-Insurgency
(COIN) Strategy whose central premise and rules of engagement have, in
practice, translated into submission to shariah and the enemies
Homeland Security: Allowing deep penetration by
Muslim Brotherhood operatives to translate into lexicons, strategies and
guidelines that are seriously defective and doomed to fail
NASA: Implementing presidential guidance that
established the Administrator’s “foremost” priority as “making Muslim
nations feel good about their historic contribution to science…and math
What do you think Candidate Barack Obama meant when he declared he
would “fundamentally transform the United States of America” during his
Why is the term “countering violent extremism” being used? Are there more accurate ways to describe the threat we face?
Do you think the characterization of the Muslim Brotherhood given
Congress by the Director of National Intelligence in February 2011 –
namely, that it is a “largely secular” organization, that has “eschewed
violence” and “repudiated al Qaeda” and has “no overarching agenda, at
least internationally” – is shaping U.S. policy toward that
organization, here and abroad?
What is the “Istanbul Process” and what do you make of it? Is it a threat to our First Amendment freedoms?
Should federal agencies be giving Muslim “community leaders” veto
power or even key advisory roles in the selection of trainers and the
content of training materials for “countering violent extremism”?
Is the Defense Department’s counter-insurgency (COIN) strategy – at
least as it is currently being implemented in Afghanistan – susceptible
to misperception by the enemy as submissive? If so, what are the
implications of such a perception taking hold there?
Should the Department of Homeland Security’s Countering Violent
Extremism Working Group include any, let alone a significant number, of
shariah-adherent Muslims or other Islamist-sympathizers?
Do you believe NASA administrator’s “foremost” responsibility should
be to “engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them
feel good about their historic contribution to science … and math and
engineering”? Why do you think the President would say it is?
How to defeat the most serious and imminent of such dangers in our
time: the Islamist doctrine of shariah and the efforts of its adherents
to impose it world-wide, on Muslims and non-Muslims alike, through
violent means or by stealth.
Key Findings in Part 10
Every effort must be made to defeat the most serious and imminent of
ideological danger in our time: the Islamist doctrine of shariah and
the efforts of its adherents to impose it worldwide, on Muslims and
non-Muslims alike, through violent means or by stealth.
This can be accomplished through concerted action at three levels:
Organized efforts by groups
Illustrative examples of each include:
Individual initiatives: Becoming knowledgeable
about the threat from shariah and the Muslim Brotherhood who seek to
bring it here and trained in how best to counter such a threat
state-level legislation to prevent foreign laws like shariah that
violate constitutional rights from being practiced in the state’s courts
National action: Designating the Muslim
Brotherhood a terrorist organization and terminating all outreach to and
support of this group and its various fronts, both here and abroad.
Do you think America should be kept free of seditious shariah?
Are you willing to help?
Have you identified an area of this counter-jihad that you feel particularly strongly about?
Do you have skill sets that would enable you to be especially
effective in one facet or another of the effort to counter shariah in
Do you know of others who feel the same way or could be helpful?
Are there improvements you would make to this course that would make it more impactful for people like you?
What are your next steps in terms of becoming more knowledgeable, trained and engaged in the War for the Free World?
Sen. James Inhofe is calling for an investigation into a top
Environmental Protection Agency administrator who confessed that his
“philosophy of enforcement” was to “crucify” and “make examples of”
Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz has apologized
for his remarks, but meteorologist and author Brian Sussman points out
that this is only the surface of a much deeper problem with the federal
In an exclusive interview with WND, Sussman asked, “Would the EPA
official have apologized for his contemptuous crucifixion declaration if
he had not been caught on tape? Of course not. His statement is a
perfect representation of eco-tyranny.”
In his explosive new book of that title, Sussman
details how what he calls “green authoritarianism” was inevitable from
the beginning. He explains that Richard Nixon, who “wanted to be liked,”
according to one of his well-known former advisers, created the
Environmental Protection Agency as an olive branch to the hard left. As
Sussman jokes, “Needless to say, it was not returned.”
According to Sussman, the EPA and the legislation that empowered it,
notably the Clean Air Act, “[were] flatly unconstitutional.” Article I,
Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives the federal government
the power “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the
several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”
But Sussman notes that “somehow this turned into the ability for
Congress to regulate the conduct of individual businesses, the output of
specific industrial processes, and the makeup of the atmosphere itself.
And as we’ve seen, they can’t wait to shut down businesses they don’t
also exposes what Sussman calls the Obama administration’s “war” on oil
and gas production. He notes that the Obama administration imposed a
moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, costing an estimated
137,000 jobs and $400 million to the state of Louisiana.
Furthermore, Obama also suspended exploratory drilling in Alaska, with his Department of Interior stonewalling any applications.
Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar also shut down efforts to harness shale oil in the Mountain West.
See the Armendariz rant: PLEASE NOTICE THAT THE BELOW VIDEO HAS BEEN REMOVED.. WONDER WHY ?
The result, Sussman charges, “is a deliberate effort to keep our
country dependent on oil imports from the hostile nations of OPEC
(Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries). If our president
would simply unleash American industry, OPEC would soil their tunics.”
Subject: disturbing - IS THIS A WORLD PROBLEM ? NOT TELLING US IN AMERICA Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 19:16:05 -0700
Russia Stunned After Japanese Plan to Evacuate 40 Million Revealed
By The European Union Times
A new report circulating in the Kremlin today prepared by the Foreign Ministry on the planned re-opening of talks
with Japan over the disputed Kuril Islands during the next fortnight
states that Russian diplomats were “stunned” after being told by their
Japanese counterparts that upwards of 40 million of their peoples were
in “extreme danger” of life threatening radiation poisoning and could
very well likely be faced with forced evacuations away from their
countries eastern most located cities… including the world’s largest
The Kuril Islands
are located in Russia's Sakhalin Oblast region and stretch
approximately 1,300 km (810 miles) northeast from Hokkaido-, Japan, to
Kamchatka, Russia, separating the Sea of Okhotsk from the North Pacific
Ocean. There are 56 islands and many more minor rocks. It consists of
Greater Kuril Ridge and Lesser Kuril Ridge, all of which were captured
by Soviet Forces in the closing days of World War II from the Japanese.
The “extreme danger” facing tens of millions of the Japanese peoples is the result of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster
that was a series of equipment failures, nuclear meltdowns, and
releases of radioactive materials at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power
Plant, following the To-hoku earthquake and tsunami on 11 March 2011.
According to this report, Japanese diplomats have
signaled to their Russian counterparts that the returning of the Kuril
Islands to Japan is “critical” as they have no other place to resettle
so many people that would, in essence, become the largest migration of human beings since the 1930’s when Soviet leader Stalin forced tens of millions to resettle Russia’s far eastern regions.
In a recent interview Michelle Obama revealed a fantasy of hers, and
it just so happens this very same fantasy is shared by millions and
millions and millions of Americans. In fact, Glenn has the exact same
fantasy. Many accuse him of bashing the Obama’s for no reason, but
that’s not the case. “When they’re right, they’re right,” Glenn
explained. “On this particular thing, I think we can unite.”
Here is what the First Lady said her fantasy was:
“One fantasy I have, and the Secret Service, they keep looking at me,
because they think I might actually do it, is to walk right out the
front door and just keep walkin’.”
“What an amazing coincidence!” Pat said, “That’s the exact same fantasy we all have!”
Glenn liked Michelle Obama’s fantasy so much, in fact, that he
devoted a song to her this morning… “Ain’t Gonna Let Nobody Turn Me
Around,” which, ironically, is by The Roots, the same band that played a
much less flattering song for Michele Bachmann on Jimmy Fallon’s show.
“Walk out that door and don’t come back,” Pat said while the song played.
“You stick to your principles. You just keep on walking,” Glenn joked
Glenn talked on radio today about GBTV’s stunning documentary Rumors of War III: Target U.S.
and how it showed the administration’s shocking ties to the radical
Muslim Brotherhood. They are trying to recreate the Arab Spring here in
the U.S. & with our (and Europe’s) economy on edge it won’t take
much to push us over the cliff. In the clip above from radio, Glenn
explains what you can find in the documentary and the dangerous ties
between radicals in the White House and radicals in the Muslim
Brotherhood. The evidence will shock you!
House GOP leaders said Friday they are pursuing a plan to hold
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and the Justice Department in
contempt for “stonewalling” them over information regarding the
administration’s failed Fast and Furious gun-tracking program.
GOP Rep. Darrell Issa confirmed to Fox News that House Speaker John
Boehner gave him and others on his House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform the authority to drafted a contempt of Congress
resolution. “We have a few other options (but) to a great extent we’ve been stonewalled by the Justice Department,” said Issa, R-Calif. The news of the document and the extended meeting in Boehner’s office was reported first by The Los Angeles Times. “We have issued a subpoena,” Utah GOP Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a member
of the oversight committee, said earlier on Fox News. “We have bent over
backwards to be patient and take time. (Holder) is
Is Israel developing UAV cargo carriers and platforms that can stay aloft a week at atime? Are there new UAVs powered by solar energy and fuel cells? Will intelligence gathering UAVs shrink to miniature sizes?
Will Israel's next generation of UAVs be cargo carriers, solar Ebergy
powered, or so tiny they'll be undetectable? The answer to these
questions is yes! At least that's the direction Israel is taking—a world
leader in unmanned aerial vehicles.
to Israeli Air Force (IAF) statistics, UAVs carry out almost half of
today's missions and major military campaigns (such as Operation
Defensive Shield in January 2009), and intelligence gathering is one of
the most developed activities Israeli UAVs perform. For example, Elbit
Systems' Skylark-2, which became operational in late 2011, is now
deployed in the south. The system is part of intelligence efforts to
intercept attacks from the Sinai Peninsula.
is also working on a joint project with companies in England on
advanced intelligence UAVs that are part of the British Army's
Watchkeeper Project. The British based their model on Elbit's
Hermes-450—a model that the IAF also use.
IAF introduced Elbit's larger UAV, the Hermes-900, at the same time
Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) released their Heron-class UAV.
Inter-company competition is a positive phenomenon and motivates
companies to produce superior products. However, sometimes, redundancy
between models happens.
(hunter-killer) UAVs are another area countries are focusing on,
especially the US, as they use this model for combat in Afghanistan.
According to foreign sources, the IAF also employ armed UAVs in Gaza
(though Israel never acknowledged these reports). At the 2011 DSEi
Exhibition (Defense and Security Equipment International) in London,
Thales Group displayed a model of a missile-armed UAV (Elbit and Thales
Group are partners in the Watchkeeper Project).
the direction of R&D, armed UAVs seem to be the next big thing.
Several companies are adapting weapons systems and munitions to suit
their UAVs. Sending a robotic vehicle into the air with lethal weapon
systems is nothing short of a quantum leap in technological
KEEP THE BALL IN PLAY - IT WILL STRIKE HOME SOMEWHERE...LET'S SEE WHAT THIS STATE WILL DO ?
federal judge has determined in a case challenging Barack Obama’s
eligibility for a state ballot that the meaning of the constitutional
phrase “natural born citizen” is “important and not trivial.”
U.S. District Judge S. Thomas Anderson of Tennessee said the courts
ultimately must define “natural born citizen,” affirming that the “issue
of whether President Obama is constitutionally qualified to run for the
presidency is certainly substantial.”
“This specific question has been raised in numerous lawsuits filed
since President Obama took office,” Anderson wrote in his opinion. “The
outcome of the federal question in this case will certainly have an
effect on other cases presenting the same issue about whether President
Obama meets the constitutional qualifications for the presidency.”
Van Irion, whose Liberty Legal Foundation
brought the case, alleges the plan by Tennessee Democrats to register
Obama as their nominee for president opens a case, under state law, of
negligent misrepresentation and fraud or intentional misrepresentation
because of doubts about Obama’s eligibility.
Irion was pleased the court recognized the significance of the claims.
“The court made several very positive statements about our case,” he noted.
He cited Anderson’s statement that the court “finds that the federal
question presented, the meaning of the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ as a
qualification for the presidency set out in Article II of the
Constitution, is important and not trivial.”
“It is clear that the stated federal issue of President Obama’s
qualifications for the office are ‘actually disputed and substantial,”
the judge said.
Anderson said it also is “clear that there will be a legal dispute
over the Constitution’s definition of ‘natural born citizen’ and the
Supreme Court’s decision in Minor.”
Irion told supporters, “While it is certainly dangerous to read too
much into such an opinion, the statements from this federal court are
encouraging. The court appears to understand the most critical issues
presented by our complaint.”
He told WND that the issue identified by Anderson is what virtually
all of the dozens of cases challenging Obama’s eligibility have been
seeking: a ruling on accusations that Obama is unqualified.
Previously, cases have been dismissed based on standing or other technicalities, not on the merits.
The decision from Anderson came in a case brought by Irion on behalf
of voters and political candidates in Tennessee. The plaintiffs argue
Obama’s name cannot be submitted because he is ineligible.
The defendants had moved the case from state court, where Irion
wanted to argue the state issues, to federal court, where Obama
virtually has batted a thousand in preventing cases from reaching the
point at which the merits are assessed.
Irion had submitted a motion to have the case returned to the state courts, a request Anderson denied.
But Irion was heartened by the comments from the judge, who said that
without a determination on the questions facing the court, there easily
could be differing results in court jurisdictions around the nation.
“There is a risk of inconsistent adjudications on the federal issue presented,” the judge said.
Irion also had raised questions about “Obama’s dual citizenship” and allegations that his Social Security number is fraudulent.
“The court construes these allegations about President Obama … as
corroboration of plaintiffs’ main allegation that President Obama is not
a natural born citizen or otherwise qualified to be president,” the
Anderson’s opinion included a notation that the U.S. Supreme Court in
Minor v. Happersett defined “natural born citizen” as “all children
born in a country of parents who were its citizens.”
“It is undisputed that the material fact at issue in this case is
whether under the circumstances of president Obama’s birth, the
president is a ‘natural born citizen,’ a term set out in the United
States Constitution and construed under federal law,” he wrote.
WND reported just a day ago that members of Congress, regarding
Obama’s eligibility, still are relying on statements from Hawaii
officials, “vetting” by voters and his own word.
Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio., for example has said. “I will continue to
take the president at his word that he is a natural born citizen of the
Obama released an image of a Hawaiian long-form birth certificate on
April 27, 2011, after years of stating that the document was not
available. But at that time, the Hawaii Department of Health and
governor’s office refused to confirm for WND that the image released was
an accurate representation of the state’s records.
However, Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s law enforcement investigators have
found probable cause that the document is a forgery. Others, meanwhile,
argue that the document affirms Obama is not eligible, because it lists
his father as a foreigner. The Founders, they argue, understood “natural
born citizen” to be the offspring of two American citizens.