The Middle bEast

Islamist-allied operatives appointed by Obama are undermining U.S. security policy – explains counter-Intelligence expert, Prof. Clare Lopez. Aimed at co-opting Americas foreign policy in the Middle East, a network including well-known American diplomats, congressional representatives, figures from academia and the think tank world – with ties to the clerical regime in Tehran – is directing the Obama Administration’s policy towards the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Middle East.

An ex-CIA agent and counter-intelligence expert has revealed in a special report that Barack Obama has quietly appointed members of the Muslim Brotherhood to key posts within the Administration. Dr. Clare Lopez, professor at the Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies, wrote a policy paper in December of 2009 which details the systematic appointment of Sharia-friendly advocates within the State Department and other government agencies.

For example, the Tehran-born Dr. Vali Nasr was appointed to co-direct Obama foreign policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan. Former Saudi Arabian supplicant Charles Freeman was appointed by Obama to chair the Administration's National Intelligence Council, but withdrew his name when it was revealed he issued a 2-page screed in which he postulated a conspiracy theory claiming he had been 'victimized' by American supporters of Israel. In addition, John Limbert was appointed to direct U.S. policy toward the Islamist regime in Iran. Limbert, who was taken hostage during the Iranian upheaval of the late 70s-early 80s, is an Iranian sympathizer who advocates negotiation with one of the most brutal dictatorships in the world.
A video of Lopez's assessment of Islamist influence in the Obama Administration can be found in the top left column.
While it is true that some of the initial appointees have departed from the Administration, the fix was already in. The Obama Administration is manned by Sharia-friendly appointees who help steer American foreign policy in the Middle East.

Why is this relevant to 2011?

Events which are currently unfolding in the Middle East are a consequence of the behind-the-scenes work of Islamic advocates within the Administration.
According to reports issued by NewsRealBlog, RedState, and LaborUnionReport, secret documents released by Wikileaks indicate that the United States government has been in the process of planning social and political upheaval in the Middle East for at least 2 years--beginning during the waning days of the Bush Administration and continuing under Obama. The goal was to push moderate Muslim dictators out the door in countries such as Egypt, while advocating so-called 'democracy' which would then insure the rise of Muslim Brotherhood-supported Islamists to fill the power-gap.

How would such a grand scheme be accomplished?

The reports expose a consortium of Leftwing organizations, Islamic groups, labor unions, and Obama-friendly corporations which would organize and fund a 'youth movement' in certain areas around the Middle East which would then take to the streets in protest against current governments.
Some of the corporations involved are Google, YouTube, MSNBC, Facebook, National Geographic, M-TV, and Pepsi. In addition, the U.S. State Department, Columbia Law School, and various Islamic extremist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR, and others are central to the plot.
The goal is to set in motion a domino effect, hoping that regime-change in Eqypt would spread to other nations in the Middle East, and eventually destabilize Europe, and ultimately, the United States.

No sooner had Mubarak been ousted in Eqypt than demands were issued for war with Israel. Egypt's government and Constitution were abolished by the military. The Camp David Accords, which has kept peace between Egypt and Israel since the 1970s, was discarded.

Then, Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi issued a call to the Muslim world to wage war with Israel. There is upheaval in Jordon and Lebannon as well--Israel's closest neighbors.

And while the Obama Administration rushed to jump out in front of the uprising in Egypt to praise its so-called 'push for democracy,' a similar uprising this week in Iran has been met with deafening silence.

Why?

Perhaps some basic facts will provide clues.

Obama's top national security advisor declared that the Muslim Brotherhood is a 'secular' organization, non-extremist, and dedicated to 'peace.' Obama himself, in an interview with Fox News' Bill O'Reilly, refused to refer to the Brotherhood as an Islamic extremist organization, in spite of the fact that the group's own charter, and recent statements made by its leadership, indicate exactly that.

And a Muslim board member of CPAC, of all things, declared in a news conference that 'there is no Muslim Brotherhood in the United States,' despite the fact that the group issued a document in 1991 indicating its North American objectives.

At the very least it is clear that things are not as they seem on the surface in Eqypt, Iran, nor within the Obama Administration and the American Muslim community. And, due to the fact that the mainstream media merely parrots the official Administration propaganda, the American people are being bamboozled.

At the very least it is clear that things are not as they seem on the surface in Eqypt, Iran, nor within the Obama Administration and the American Muslim community.  And, due to the fact that the mainstream media merely parrots the official Administration propaganda, the American people are being bamboozled. http://exm.nr/hNXn8z

Jaw-dropping court testimony by Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square bomber, singlehandedly undermines Obama administration efforts to ignore the dangers of Islamism and jihad.

Shahzad's forthright statement of purpose stands out because jihadis, when facing legal charges, typically save their skin by pleading not guilty or plea bargaining. Consider a few examples:

• Naveed Haq, who assaulted the Jewish Federation building in Seattle, pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.
• Lee Malvo, one of the Beltway Snipers, explained that "one reason for the shootings was that white people had tried to harm Louis Farrakhan." His partner John Allen Muhammad claimed his innocence to the death chamber.
• Hasan Akbar killed two fellow American soldiers as they slept in a military compound, then told the court ""I want to apologize for the attack that occurred. I felt that my life was in jeopardy, and I had no other options. I also want to ask you for forgiveness."
• Mohammed Taheri-azar, who tried to kill students on the University of North Carolina by running over them in a car and issued a series of jihadi rants against the United States, later experienced a change of heart, announced himself "very sorry" for the crimes he committed, and asked for release so that he can "re-establish myself as a good, caring and productive member of society" in California.

These efforts fit a broader pattern of Islamist mendacity; rarely does a jihadi stand on principle. Zacarias Moussaoui, 9/11's would-be twentieth hijacker, came close: his court proceedings began with his refusing to enter a plea (which the presiding judge translated into "not guilty") and then, one fine day, pleading guilty to all charges.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has become the first Obama Administration official to publicly describe last year's deadly shootings at Ft. Hood, Tex., as a terrorist act, according to a search of news clips and transcripts.

"Violent Islamic terrorism ... was part and parcel of the Ft. Hood killings," Napolitano told the Senate Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday morning. "There is violent Islamic terrorism, be it Al Qaeda in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen or anywhere else, [and] that is indeed a major focus of this department and its efforts."

In the months since an Army psychiatrist -- who had been in contact with a radical Muslim cleric in Yemen -- opened fired inside the Army base, many on Capitol Hill have urged administration officials to publicly identify the attack as terrorism.

Those calls have been used by Republicans and others to paint administration officials as weak on terrorism and subsequently unwilling to use the word "terrorism."

During the Senate hearing on Wednesday morning, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), the Homeland Security Committee's chairman, called the administration's "reluctance" to use terms such as "Islamist extremism" or "Muslim terrorist" a "pet peeve of mine."

He said his "concern" about the issue was "aroused again" when an internal Pentagon review of the events leading up to the attack by Army Maj. Nidal Hasan on Nov. 5, 2009, never used such terms.

Lieberman asked Napolitano: "Has the administration made a decision to avoid any public reference to 'violent Islamist extremism' or 'Muslim terrorists'?"

Napolitano denied any such move.

"There has been no such decision," she said. "The [phrase] that you refer to, 'violent Islamic terrorism,' is something that we fight and deal with every day at the Department of Homeland Security. There is no doubt about that. It was the motivation [for the failed Christmas Day bombing], it was part and parcel of the Ft. Hood killings and other incidents we have seen this year within the United States."

This comes a month after a senior Obama Administration official characterized the Ft. Hood attack, which killed 13 people and wounded dozens more, as "an act of terrorism." But that official did not want to be identified publicly, speaking to reporters only on the condition of anonymity.

The same day, shortly after the internal Pentagon report was released, Defense Secretary Robert Gates declined to characterize the attack as terrorism, saying he did not want to disrupt an ongoing legal case.

"I'm not going to go there," he told reporters.

Five days later, on Jan. 20, FBI Director Robert Mueller told the Senate Judiciary Commitee about "threats from home grown extremists," including "the tragic shootings at Ft. Hood."

At Wednesday's Senate hearing, Lieberman, who has repeatedly described the Ft. Hood shootings as "terrorism," said he "appreciated" Napolitano doing the same.

In fact, he said, hesitating to acknowledge or identify Islamic terrorism could ultimately work against the religion.

"I don't think we do a favor to Muslim Americans or people who are followers of Islam anywhere in the world by not saying that this is an extreme expression -- a violent expression -- of one of the world's great religions," Lieberman said. "It is not Islam as most Muslims practice it, and as most of us who are not Muslim know it. ... We're not at war with Islam, we're at war with a particular extremist violent terrorist expression, which in my opinion is a corruption, a perversion, of Islam. And we ought to be willing to say so."

Napolitano agreed, saying simply, "Indeed."

During his remarks, Lieberman acknowledged that the Department of Homeland Security "has to be concerned about" many types of terrorism unrelated to Islam, including extremist acts by white supremacists, animal rights activists and environmental activists.

The exchange about the use of the phrase "Islamic terrorism," during a nearly two-hour hearing focusing on the DHS budget, lasted less than five minutes.

Napolitano has often used the word "terrorism," including several times during her Senate confirmation hearing more than a year ago. But she, like others in the Obama Administration, has rarely referred to "Islamic terrorism."

Hasan, paralyzed from the waist down after being injured during the attack, has been charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted murder.

-----
Finally, Janet gets it. We knew this already when it happened. What took them so long to figure it out. Politics through and through.