New Campaign against Rep. Bachmann for Anti-Brotherhood Stance

Family Security Matters

People for the American Way (PFAW)  has launched a new campaign against Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN), who,  after her recent re-election to Congress, has been re-appointed to the House  Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI).

A PFAW-sponsored petition  with 178,000 signatures is to be presented to House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH)  on Monday 21 January 2012 to protest Bachmann’s HPSCI appointment.

Citing what PFAW calls “ugly  Islamophobic fear mongering,” the petition decries what it alleges are  Bachmann’s “unfounded  and irresponsible attacks on dedicated public servants.”

Although it does not say so specifically, the PFAW petition likely refers to  a set of letters signed by Rep. Bachmann and four Congressional colleagues –  Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Trent Franks (R-AZ), Tom Rooney (R-FL) and Lynn  Westmorland (R-GA).

The letters were sent in June 2012 to the inspectors general of the  Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Justice and State and the Office of  the Director of National Security (ODNI). The letters  note that U.S. foreign policy has undergone a dramatic shift in the  direction of open support for the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood to power across  the Middle  East and North Africa (MENA) region and question whether that policy  shift may be the result of Brotherhood influence operations.

Given that the 2008 Holy Land Foundation  HAMAS terror funding case had established with voluminous documentary evidence  from the Muslim Brotherhood’s own archives that its  mission in America is “a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within,” Congressional requests, most particularly from the HPSCI, that inspectors general look into the possibility of Brotherhood penetration into the highest levels of the U.S. government would seem to be most appropriate.

As the debacle of the Islamic Awakening continues to churn across the MENA  (Middle East North Africa) region, and Muslim Brotherhood operatives consolidate  their sharia rule in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt (and move closer to  ousting Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad), the collaboration of the U.S.  government in the Brotherhood’s “grand Jihad” is as critical to the jihadis as it is inexplicable to defenders of genuine democracy both at  home and abroad.

As Rep. Bachmann and her colleagues rightly pointed out, U.S. policy, once  implacably opposed to the march of Islamic jihad, shifted dramatically  during the years following the 9/11 attacks. At the same time, individuals with  close links to the Muslim Brotherhood were named to advisory and appointed  government positions.

Huma Abedin, for example, who is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s deputy  chief of staff, not only served while a student at George Washington University  on the Executive  Board of the Muslim Students Association (MSA), a Muslim Brotherhood front  group that is so acknowledged in its own document (The  Explanatory Memorandum), but also served for 12 years as the assistant  editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs (JMMA), the  publication of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA).

Both the IMMA and its journal were founded by Abdullah Omar Naseef, whom Andrew  McCarthy describes as “a wealthy and influential Saudi academic who became a  financier of the al Qaeda terror network as well as the secretary-general of  Muslim World League – one of the most significant joint ventures of the Muslim  Brotherhood and the Saudi government in terms of spreading Islamic supremacist  ideology.”

Then there is Mohamed Magid, the president of the Islamic Society of North  America (ISNA), the largest  Muslim Brotherhood front group in the U.S. and named by the Department of  Justice an unindicted  co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation HAMAS terror funding trial.

As with Abedin, Magid’s leadership of an acknowledged affiliate of a jihadist organization pledged to “destroying the Western civilization  from within” seemed no obstacle to a U.S. government advisory appointment on an  issue directly related to jihad. Magid was named a member of the  Department of Homeland Security’s “Countering  Violent Extremism (CVE) Working Group” of the Homeland Security Advisory  Council in Spring 2010.

Mohamed  Elibiary, Magid’s colleague on the DHS Working Group is also a member of the  DHS Advisory Council itself. Elibiary has defended  Sayyed Qutb, perhaps the foremost theoretician of the Muslim Brotherhood,  and recommended  his writings. He also spoke at a December 2004 conference in honor of Iran’s  Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini entitled, “A Tribute to a  Great Islamic Visionary.”

Abedin, Magid,  and Elibiary  are but three examples cited with careful and thorough references in the  Congressional letters to the inspectors general; all were named to serve in U.S.  government positions in which they are expected to provide advice on official  policy related to Islamic terrorism.

During their collective government tenure, U.S. policy backed  al-Qaeda-affiliated militias to overthrow the government of Libya and replace it  with one strongly influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood; supported the Egyptian  Muslim Brotherhood to oust the government of Hosni Mubarak, an American ally for  over 30 years; and openly declared support for al-Qaeda and Muslim  Brotherhood-linked rebel militias fighting to oust the Syrian regime of Bashar  al-Assad.

Further, during the period when Abedin, Magid, Elibiary and like-minded  figures have been in positions to influence U.S. policy “from  within,” the U.S. government has implemented a federal-bureaucracy-wide  policy to purge  from official documents, speech, and training all usage of terms like  “jihad” to describe terrorism that is motivated by Islamic doctrine,  law and scriptures.

And yet, the questionable allegiances, background history and documented  positions of these and others in support of individuals, organizations and  positions that espouse Islamic terrorism not only failed to alert any  independent counterintelligence authorities within their respective Cabinet  departments or during background investigation processes. Unbelievably, the  documented history of these individuals seemed of insignificant merit to attract  strong bipartisan support even when Reps. Bachmann, Franks, Gohmert, Rooney and  Westmoreland courageously and appropriately raised the issue themselves.

It is part of the duties of the inspectors general to investigate even the  appearance of conflict of interest lest public trust in its federal servants be  eroded. When the possible conflict of interest involves the forces of Islamic jihad, the very enemy that attacked us on 9/11, the one battling to  defeat American troops fighting in Africa, Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere, then  the obligation to take seriously the warnings of patriotic Congressional  representatives is indeed a serious one.

Read more: Family Security Matters Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s