Obama, The Muslim Brotherhood and Iran

by Paul & Phillip D. Collins, Jan. 11, 2008

Muslim Brotherhood Diagrams these authors write these words, Israel is conducting a major ground assault in the Gaza Strip. Israeli ground troops and heavy armor have moved deep into the Gaza Strip (“Israeli forces split Gaza in two”). According to the BBC, the move has, in effect, cut the territory in two (ibid). This ground assault followed hot on the heels of Operation Cast Lead, a December 27-28 series of Israeli airstrikes conducted in Gaza in response to Hamas’ refusal to renew the truce brokered by Egypt in the summer of 2008 (Khalil, “The already-strained Hamas-Egypt relationship sours”). Hamas had been launching rocket attacks into Israel since December 24, when no less than 70 rockets hit the small Jewish state, and Israel decided to strike back (“Israeli jets hit Hamas target, killing 1”).

Doubtless, the conflict between Israel and Hamas is one of the many issues that Obama will have to address when he enters the Oval Office. Is the President-elect sincere in his opposition to the terrorists responsible for the current Middle East crisis? Obama has repeatedly condemned Hamas, calling the group a terrorist organization (Oinounou, “A Hamas problem for Obama?”) The President-elect even went as far as to condemn former President Jimmy Carter for meeting with Hamas (ibid). But the words of Ahmed Yousef, a top Hamas political advisor, during a WABC interview, seem to suggest that Obama’s opposition to Hamas may be a mere public relations ploy. During the interview, Yousef stated:

“We don’t mind-actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance.” (Ibid)

Why would Hamas support an Obama presidency? The answer may lie in a group known as the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Muslim Brotherhood
Hassan al-Banna
According to former CIA operative Robert Baer, Hamas was an offshoot of the Egyptian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood (172). Founded in 1928 by an Egyptian schoolteacher named Hassan al-Banna with the expressed purpose of purifying Islam, the Muslim Brotherhood is anything but a benign Muslim organization (172). According to Baer, the Brotherhood “is another of the cauldrons from which al Qaeda emerged” (172). Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the architect of the September 11 attacks, joined the Muslim Brotherhood at the age of sixteen and attended the Brotherhood’s desert youth camps (Mintz and Farah, “In Search of Friends Among Foes”). Ayman Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s deputy, was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Egyptian branch (ibid). According to Seymour Hersh, the Brotherhood may have even been involved in the September 11 attacks. Hersh states: “Many of the September 11th hijackers had operated out of cells in Aachen and Hamburg, where Al Qaeda was working with the Brotherhood” (“The Syrian Bet”). The Brotherhood’s hatred of the United States was clearly expressed in a 1991 internal memorandum written by Mohamed Akram for the Shura Council of the Muslim Brotherhood. Entitled “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America,” the document states that the Brotherhood’s activities in the United States represent:

“a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” (Akram)


Posted in Israel_Gaza Conflict, National Security, Religion, Sharia Islam | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Mexico’s Immigration Laws Stricter Than the U.S,

Let’s compare Mexico’s strict immigration program to ours and one will soon discover that they will incarcerate a second time border crosser for up to ten years, there are no bilingual programs to accommodate their foreign invaders, in addition, new immigrants must demonstrate the ability to provide support for their families.

America could learn a lot from our southern neighbor, rather than jeopardizing our national security, pandering to the Democrat Party and enabling corporations to feed upon cheap labor at the expense of the American taxpayer.

Americans who oppose illegal immigration have been called racist and unsympathetic? Liberals have even gone out of their way to remove the word “illegal” and replace it with “undocumented.” They demand those here illegally receive the same benefits as Americans. However, how does Mexico treat those entering their country illegally?
According to Mexico’s immigration laws, every article of law controls illegal immigration into Mexican territory.
If you immigrate to Mexico, Article 32 states you must speak Spanish and must be a professional who is useful to the Mexican society. There are no bilingual programs in the school and no pressing 2 for English. All business must be conducted in Spanish.

Investors are welcome; but must pay higher than minimum wage and your land purchases are restricted.

Article 34 states that foreigners must have the necessary funds to support themselves and their dependents. There are no welfare programs, food stamps, government housing or entitlements.

Article 87 states foreigners must be “physically and mentally healthy.”

Articles 73, 85, 86, 87 state foreigners must be on a national population registry, cooperating with federal local, and municipal police.

Article 116 states foreigners using fake documents face a fine and imprisonment. Immigrants must show birth certificate to show citizenship.

Articles 117-121 state foreigners who fail to obey laws will be fined, deported, and felons imprisoned. No one is allowed to enter the country with a criminal record. There is no due process of deportation.

There is no 14th Amendment. Law enforcement officers are required to enforce Mexico’s immigration laws at all times.
Articles 123-126 make illegal immigration a felony.
Articles 127 state any Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner is subject to five years in prison.

While there are many people who come to America legally each year, there are millions of those in America that have come illegally. Instead of our government enforcing the law, such as they do in Mexico, these illegal immigrants do not assimilate into society causing the American taxpayer to spend billions of dollars for services each year. The total estimated cost by the American taxpayer is $383 billion each year according to policallyincorrectfacts.com. Taxpayers pay for welfare, social services, food stamps, WIC, free school lunches, free housing, health care, primary and secondary education. American taxpayers pay billions each year for anchor babies, children born in America from illegal mothers. Three million is spent each day to support illegal immigrants in prison. Nearly one million sex crimes are committed by illegal immigrants each year in the United States. All criminal costs does not include billions spent on attorney and court cost paid by the American taxpayer.

Today, illegal immigrants are provided services in whatever language they desire. Many states are now providing driver’s licenses. The Democrat party is also pandering to allow those in America illegally the opportunity to vote. While the Democrat party claims to be the party for the poor, they consider this an opportunity for them to bring more poor into America to receive more votes and congressional power. However, with millions of illegal immigrants in America, there are less jobs available for the working poor in America. Hence, those in black America have a higher unemployment rate since Obama became president and 46 million Americans are currently on food stamps, which is the highest amount in American history.

If our political leaders think it is so good to bring in so many illegal immigrants, why not just open the border and allow anyone into America and pay for it all with an ongoing printing press of debt to the American economy? As crazy as that question may sound, that is exactly what our political leaders are doing.

Frank Aquila


Posted in 2016 Election, Immigration, National Security | Tagged | Leave a comment

Evidence That CPUSA Supports, Promotes Racial Unrest


Print | ShareThis | Email to a Friend assets/Uploads/_resampled/CroppedImage5555-jarvistyner2.jpg
This story is reposted from Political Affairs.

Where we have come from
Government policy of racist oppression and brutality goes back before capitalism, but with capitalism came modern American slavery. Our history as a nation shows capitalism and slavery are an especially toxic mix. It has taken tens of millions of lives over centuries.

Turning human beings into commodities to be bought and sold, with no rights and basically worked to death meant a level of viciousness, brutality, and suffering that humanity had not before experienced. Maintaining this system required a long reign of terror to try to prevent people from pursuing freedom. The system of chattel slavery was defeated but racism and racial oppression remains a cornerstone of capitalist rule in our country up to today. After the defeat of the old Jim Crow (U. S. apartheid) in the 1960’s, new forms of Jim Crow were created. The majority of African Americans remained segregated and unequal in most vital areas of life.

Jim Crow extended the reign of terror to keep millions of African Americans and other people of color trapped in poverty, ill‐housed, ill‐fed, poorly educated, brutalized by the police and incarcerated at the highest rates in the world. All of this was not possible without systemic, structural racism, including a policy of racial exclusion, to make it to work. Racial profiling in law enforcement and in private and public employment has a central place in a system of oppression that penalizes people of color with double and triple unemployment rates, poverty rates and incarceration rates that far exceed any other racial group.

To hold Black folks in deep poverty and oppression, to keep the people-‐especially working class people‐-racially divided and antagonistic remains a basic part of U.S. capitalist rule. It is a central and strategic reason why the ruling 1% can maintain their power and their privilege. Most African Americans, Native Americans, Latinos, Asian and Pacific peoples who find themselves and their families trapped in a super exploited, racially oppressed crisis state of existence are there not because they are inferior or lack initiative and discipline, or because they are lazy and unintelligent, criminal, violent or childlike. It is the system of racial oppression and terror that’s primarily responsible and that is what must be challenged. That should be the historic mission of all people of good will who want a democratic and humane society with economic and social equality and justice for all.


Posted in Communism/ Marxism | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

M16 Spy Found Dead Inside a Bag in His London Bathtub Hacked Clinton’s Server

The MI6 spy who was found dead inside a holdall bag in his bathtub in London hacked into secret data held on former U.S. President Bill Clinton, The Sun newspaper has sensationally claimed today.

Gareth Williams was 31 years old when he was found naked, dead in his own bathtub in Pimlico, just a few minutes walk away from Britain’s Houses of Parliament.

Speculation has been rife ever since his death in September 2010 about the circumstances surrounding his death. A Metropolitan Police investigation revealed predictably, though suspiciously, that Mr Williams’ death was “probably an accident”. This was despite an initial inquest concluding that his death was “unnatural and likely to have been criminally mediated.”

Since then the unexplained death has been the subject of investigation by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The BBC reported as early as December 2010 that Mr Williams had been on secondment from Britain’s signals intelligence operation GCHQ to MI6, and then subsequently to the United States’ National Security Agency.

The Sun reports that Williams had “dug out the guestlist for an event the former American president was going to as a favour for a pal.”


Posted in 2016 Election, Domestic Terrorism, National Security, Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

Canadian “Hate Speech” Proposal Threatens Free Speech

Thirteen years, thirteen honor killings, all in Muslim families, all of them in Canada. But if you should condemn those murders, you might find yourself the subject of investigation and convicted of a crime.

Quebec Human Rights Commissioner Jacques Frémont has proposed a bill “to prevent and combat hate speech and speech inciting violence.”

If adopted, the law known as Bill 59 would allow Quebec’s Human Rights Commission or members of the public “to initiate a ‘hate speech’ lawsuit against a person who makes a statement considered discriminatory against a group,” Marc Lebuis, director of Point de Bascule, an organization that tracks Islamist activities in Canada, said in a recent interview.

In addition, the bill would grant the commission power to investigate people alleged to have uttered hate speech, said Justice Minister Stephanie Vallée. Those convicted of promoting hate could be fined up to $20,000 and their names would be made public and posted indefinitely to a list available online.

Most view Bill 59 as a response to pressure from Muslim groups, who have filed several complaints of “Islamophobia” and anti-Muslim hate speech in recent years. In many ways, the bill resembles UN Resolution 16/18, an initiative of the 56 Islamic States who comprise the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and which restricts speech that could be considered “discriminatory” or which defames religion and can be considered “incitement to violence.” Only Bill 59 is worse: it pertains to personal, subjective, emotional responses that an individual has to something that he reads, hears, or encounters.

That this proposed statute flies in the face of everything we in the United States as well as in Canada believe to be fundamental to human and civil rights and the sanctity of free speech is not the only challenge the proposed bill presents. But it presents its greatest threat to democracy and the values the West holds sacred.

Ironically, Lebuis says, supporters justify the bill by suggesting it will protect democracy against terrorism. They reason that “terrorism is a reaction towards people who criticize their religion,” he explains, “so by banning the criticism of Islam, we would end terrorism.” Such arguments have been made both by Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard and by Muslim groups such as the Association of Muslims and Arabs for a Secular Quebec (AMAL). “Hate and Islamophobia drive certain people in groups subject to discrimination toward another form of extremism and violence,” said AMAL President Haroun Bouazzi in a recent presentation to the National Assembly during a debate over the bill.

But Canada’s federal criminal code already calls for imprisonment (up to two years) for “anyone who incites hatred against any identifiable group,” as the Montreal Gazette points out. Though the proposed bill addresses hate speech against individuals, not groups, it fails even to define what “hate speech” is. As attorney Julius Grey testified, “Nietzsche, Shakespeare and Voltaire could all be found to have incited violence and hatred. Should they have been censored?”

Moreover, because there is no clear definition of “hate speech” and no standard by which it can be measured, the bill leaves the door wide open for prosecution. “It is based on what people feel or could feel,” Lebuis said. “Public interest, the truth, facts or even intentions are no defense.”

That situation is made worse by the fact that conviction is based on the determination of the Human Rights Commission tribunal, overriding federal laws which require a determination of guilt “beyond reasonable doubt.” As columnist Don MacPherson observes in the Montreal Gazette:

“The federal Criminal Code defines ‘hate propaganda’ as advocating or promoting genocide, inciting hatred against an identifiable group [that is] likely to lead to a breach of the peace,’ or ‘willfully’ promoting hatred against such a group … And an accused can’t be convicted ‘if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true” (as would be the case, say, with any condemnation of an honor killing).
But Bill 59 makes no such provisions.

Others, including (surprisingly) AMAL’s Bouazzi, have objected to the proposed creation of a permanent, public record of those found guilty of “hate speech” – a gesture that is not only defamatory but could even become dangerous should anyone seek retribution. Further, “hate speech” is not defined in the bill, so such a conviction has Machiavellian potential: For example, were you, to ascribe honor violence or terrorism to cultural or religious beliefs, you could be subject to prosecution. This would be the case even if the actual perpetrator claimed to act in the name of culture or religion. And while a terrorist will go to prison for his deeds, should you be found guilty of violating Bill 59, your name, not his, will be indelibly included on that list visible to the world.

As such, the potential for political parties to silence – let alone criminalize – those who oppose them lurks ominously within the reaches of such a law.

Among Muslims, according to Pakistani-Canadian activist Tarek Fatah, opinions seem to be split. “Ironically, some Islamist-promoting organizations and mosques have welcomed Bill 59, notwithstanding the fact they violate it every week when they start their Friday prayers with a ritual invocation that asks, ‘Allah to give Muslims victory over the “kufaar”(Christians, Jews and Hindus),'” he writes in the Toronto Sun. Others like himself, he says, “everything we can to make sure Quebec’s Bill 59 does not pass.” And if it does pass, he adds, “the first complaint to the QHRC will be against Islamist mosques for spreading hatred against Jews and Christians.

That is a promise.”

Judging from past efforts to legislate such issues in Canada and from the apparent opposition to Bill 59 being voiced in editorials around the country, the measure seems to have little chance of passing. A measure to legalize sharia tribunals, for instance, failed in 2005, though ironically, these tribunals – opposed vehemently by Muslim women, who recognized that such tribunals tend to discriminate against women in cases of marriage, forced marriage, domestic abuse and inheritance – were denounced by many as “Islamophobic.” (One has to wonder what the Quebec HRC tribunal would have to say about that issue: Islamophobia or misogyny? And what of the person accused of “Islamophobia” who in turn declares the term “Islamophobic” offensive and presses charges against his accuser?)

Pierre Trudel, a lawyer and professor of law at the University of Montreal, also feels that the bill in its current form stands limited chance of succeeding. But, he added in an interview, “it’s fair to expect that it will be amended to answer the objections of many opponents.” Otherwise, he said, the result will be “a significant chilling effect on speech.”

Ironic, then, that nothing else could better hand a victory to those very terrorists the bill was written to subvert. In the words of Benjamin Franklin (as Silence Dogood), “Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.”

Abigail R. Esman, the author, most recently, of Radical State: How Jihad Is Winning Over Democracy in the West (Praeger, 2010), is a freelance writer based in New York and the Netherlands.

Related Topics: Abigail R. Esman, free speech, Quebec Human Rights Commission, Bill 59, Stephanie Vallée, Marc Lebuis, Point de Bascule, Philippe Couillard, Arabs For a Secular Quebec, Haroun Bouazzi, Don McPherson, Tarek Fatah


Posted in Free Speech, Geopolitics, Politics, Sharia Islam, U.N. | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Traitor Senators Took Money from Iran Lobby; Back Iran Nuke Deal

Senator Markey has announced his support for the Iran deal that will let the terrorist regime inspect its own Parchin nuclear weapons research site, conduct uranium enrichment, build advanced centrifuges, buy ballistic missiles, fund terrorism and have a near zero breakout time to a nuclear bomb.

There was no surprise there.

Markey had topped the list of candidates supported by the Iran Lobby. And the Iranian American Political Action Committee (IAPAC) had maxed out its contributions to his campaign.

After more fake suspense, Al Franken, another IAPAC backed politician who also benefited from Iran Lobby money, came out for the nuke sellout.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen, the Iran Lobby’s third Dem senator, didn’t bother playing coy like her colleagues. She came out for the deal a while back even though she only got half the IAPAC cash that Franken and Markey received.

As did Senator Gillibrand, who had benefited from IAPAC money back when she first ran for senator and whose position on the deal should have come as no surprise.

The Iran Lobby had even tried, and failed, to turn Arizona Republican Jeff Flake. Iran Lobby cash had made the White House count on him as the Republican who would flip, but Flake came out against the deal. The Iran Lobby invested a good deal of time and money into Schumer, but that effort also failed.

Still these donations were only the tip of the Iran Lobby iceberg.

Gillibrand had also picked up money from the Iran Lobby’s Hassan Nemazee. Namazee was Hillary’s national campaign finance director who had raised a fortune for both her and Kerry before pleading guilty to a fraud scheme encompassing hundreds of millions of dollars. Nemazee had been an IAPAC trustee and had helped set up the organization.

Bill Clinton had nominated Hassan Nemazee as the US ambassador to Argentina when he had only been a citizen for two years. A spoilsport Senate didn’t allow Clinton to make a member of the Iran Lobby into a US ambassador, but Nemazee remained a steady presence on the Dem fundraising circuit.

Nemazee had donated to Gillibrand and had also kicked in money to help the Franken Recount Fund scour all the cemeteries for freshly dead votes, as well as to Barbara Boxer, who also came out for the Iran nuke deal. Boxer had also received money more directly from IAPAC.


Posted in Geopolitics, National Security, Sharia Islam, Terriorism | Leave a comment

CNN Reporter Attacks Trump; Watch What Happens

A CNN reporter went after Trump at a press conference for all the protesters outside an event he was slated to attend. The GOP presidential candidate was quick with a backlash.

“I don’t see many protesters. I see thousands of people and there are a few protesters,” Trump responded. “And I figured you’d ask that question, because you know, that’s the way it is. CNN is terrible.”

“CNN is terrible.” Love him, hate him, think that he’s not really a conservative – there’s no mistaking that this is a candidate who’s got the zingers.


Posted in 2016 Election, Politics | Leave a comment