Archive for the ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ Category

by Daniel Greenfield

In the spring of 2009, Obama went down to Cairo. He skipped the gaming tables at the Omar Khayyam Casino at the Cairo Marriott and instead went over to the Islamist baccarat tables at Cairo University and bet big on the Muslim Brotherhood.

Obama had insisted on Muslim Brotherhood attendance at a speech that was part apology and part abandonment. The apology was for American power and the abandonment was of American allies.

The text of the speech was largely inconsequential in the same way that most of the words that scroll across the teleprompters of politicians are. In politics, the speech is often the medium while the timing, the audience and the location are the message. And the message was that the Brotherhood’s hour had come.

Obama was following through on an idea that had long been an article of faith on the left. The idea was that the United States had invested in a defunct status quo and that our biggest problems were our allies. The only way out was to toss them all overboard.

Generations of diplomats had griped from their walled compounds in Riyadh, Kuwait City or Doha that many of our problems in the region would go away if Israel somehow went away. But this was bigger. It involved dumping every single allied government in the region to start fresh with new governments elected through popular democracy and enjoying popular support. It would be a new beginning. And a new beginning was also the title of the Cairo speech.

The idea wasn’t new, but it was right up there with proposals to unilaterally abandon our nuclear arsenal or dedicate ten percent of the budget to foreign aid; ideas that a lot of diplomats liked, but that they knew no one would ever be crazy enough to pull the trigger on.

And then Obama tried to pull the trigger on two out of three. What he wanted was for the Brotherhood to win so that it could make the War on Terror irrelevant.

As much as the advocates of smart and soft power insisted that Islamic terrorism had nothing to do with Islam, they knew better. They knew that Al Qaeda wanted to create Islamic states that would form into a Caliphate. Central to its thinking was that it would have to fight to create these states. But what if the Caliphate could be created without a war?

To make it happen, all America had to do was surrender the Middle East.

The attacks of September 11 had created a serious crisis for liberal policymakers. Unlike the bombing of the World Trade Center on Clinton’s watch, these attacks could not be ignored or swept under the rug. But neither could liberals accept a clash of civilizations that would destroy their multicultural society or an extended series of international police actions that would militarize the country.

The logic that led from September 11 to the Cairo speech to Benghazi was impeccable. It combined the clean sweep theory with grand scale appeasement.

“Islamic terrorists are carrying out attacks because they want their countries to be ruled by Islam. Why not help them to do it?”

The United States withdrew support from its allies. It apologized, surrendered and waited for the takeovers to begin. When the dictators wouldn’t step aside voluntarily, the bombers were sent in.

The grand bargain with the Muslim Brotherhood was supposed to end the War on Terror by trading the Muslim Brotherhood’s brand of political Islamism for Al Qaeda’s campaign of terror. It was as if FDR had struck a deal with the Bolsheviks to get rid of the Trotskyites (and indeed such a bargain did operate briefly during WW2).

Obama’s grand bargain came to a squalid end on September 11. In Benghazi, the Muslim Brotherhood militia that was supposed to protect the mission instead sold it out and abandoned it.

The Brotherhood would accept American support, but it wouldn’t stop terrorist attacks against America. Its front groups in America would not cooperate with the FBI, its governments and militias in the Middle East would not protect American diplomatic facilities.

On September 11, the American embassy in Cairo was besieged by protesters with the support of the Muslim Brotherhood. In Tunis, the new Islamist government turned its back on the embassy, forcing Hillary Clinton to plead with President Marzouki to send out his own presidential guard to defend it.

In Benghazi and Cairo, Al Qaeda attacked while the Brotherhood played dumb. In Syria, Brotherhood and Al Qaeda militias worked together, while Brotherhood spokesmen insisted that they were the only secular alternative. In the United States, Al Qaeda terrorists carried out their “lone wolf” attacks while the Brotherhood front groups which ran most of the Islamic organizations in America claimed not to know what was going on.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s victories did not make Al Qaeda go away. Instead the two found common ground while playing a game of Good Terrorist and Bad Terrorist. Or as the mainstream media calls it, Moderates and Extremists.

Obama had stacked all of our allies in the Middle East that didn’t have enough oil to matter and bet them at the Brotherhood’s casino on a single spin of the wheel. And the Brotherhood took it all.

But Obama is still at the casino stacking up more chips. The next round of the game moves to Syria. Instead of the Brotherhood using its new power to protect the United States, the United States is expected to get involved in another Iraq in order to help the Brotherhood take over Syria to complete the Islamist triumphs of the Arab Spring.

The United States has become a tool of Muslim Brotherhood expansionism. Obama helped the Brotherhood overthrow governments by political means, but now the Brotherhood is demanding military intervention to help a Brotherhood/Al Qaeda coalition take over Syria. And if Obama goes along with it, he will have turned the United States military into the mercenaries of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The root cause of terrorism is not American foreign policy, but Muslim foreign policy. Appeasement turns American foreign policy into an arm of Islamic expansionism.

Americans have died because of Obama’s dirty deal with the Muslim Brotherhood. The question now is whether Obama will send American soldiers and pilots to die for the Brotherhood.

by Daniel Greenfield

While the White House was busy drafting proposals to ban assault rifles, the last of the regulations imposed on Saudi travel to the United States after September 11 were being taken apart. While some government officials were busy planning how to disarm Americans, other officials were negotiating the transfer of F-16s and Abrams tanks to Muslim Brotherhood-run Egypt.

Obama is unwilling to trust Americans with an AR-15, but is willing to trust a genocidal terrorist group with Abrams tanks and F-16 jets. The F-16’s M61 Vulcan cannon can fire 6,000 rounds a minute and the 146 lb warhead of its HARM missiles can do a lot more than put a few dents in a brick wall. The Abrams’ 120 mm cannon can penetrate 26 inches of steel armor making it a good deal more formidable than even the wildest fantasies of San Francisco liberals about the capabilities of a so-called “assault rifle.”

While Obama has not been willing to respect the Constitution of the United States and its Bill of Rights, he was willing to arm a terrorist group whose motto is, “The Koran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader, Jihad is our path and death in the name of Allah is our goal.” If a High School student wrote that on his Facebook page, he would be in police custody within the hour, but an international organization and national government that trades in such rhetoric gets devastating firepower from our government… free of charge.

In addition to giving the Hezbollah-run government of Lebanon two hundred M113 Armored Personnel Carriers, Obama deliberately turned a blind eye while Al Qaeda and other Islamist rebel groups in Libya received arms shipments from Qatar. Those weapons included a good deal more firepower than anything you can buy at Wal-Mart and later made their way to Mali and Syria. More weapons made their way into the hands of Hamas terrorists in Gaza. Whether any of these weapons were used in the assault on the Benghazi mission is unknown, but entirely possible.

While the Al Qaeda attackers at Benghazi were heavily armed, with the complicity of the Obama Administration, the Americans had been forced to abide by Libyan gun control laws, because while Obama was willing to bomb a country and help arm its terrorists, he wasn’t willing to allow embassy security personnel to flout firearms law in a city ruled by terrorist militias. Instead the terrorist militia of the Muslim Brotherhood was hired to provide security for the Benghazi mission… with tragic results.

There has been a great deal of ink spilled about Nancy Lanza’s irresponsibility in keeping guns around the house; but what of Obama’s irresponsibility in sending guns to Mexican drug lords and jets and tanks to Muslim terrorists?

Based on his track record, Obama believes that it is safe to send weapons to Mexican drug lords, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda terrorists, not to mention the Muslim Brotherhood, but that it’s far too dangerous for an American to own a clip that can hold more than 10 rounds.

And that means that Obama doesn’t think much of the moral character of Americans, but thinks a great deal of Muslim terrorists.

This double standard is the defining motif of this administration. A handful of mass shootings is enough to deprive all Americans of their constitutional rights, but the worst act of mass murder of Americans is not enough to deprive Saudi Muslim students looking for a good flight school of their visas.

Even while Obama and Biden are pushing more background checks for gun owners, Saudi students will undergo fewer background checks. In The Audacity of Hope, Obama vowed to stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction. But when the political winds shift in an ugly direction toward gun owners, then Obama can be found blowing on the fan.

In Obama’s America, only some people can expect the protection of the Bill of Rights. And in a crisis, there are some people’s civil rights that we violate and some people’s rights that we do not.

There is nothing in the Bill of Rights that says you cannot profile Muslim travelers in airports. To use the same argument as the gun controllers, airports and airplanes didn’t even exist during the time of the Founding Fathers; therefore they couldn’t have possibly foreseen their existence or applied any limitation to any violation of civil rights that can take place in them.

The murder of 3,000 people did not in any way make it acceptable to single out a Muslim for special attention, despite the laws of probability, logic and common sense. That would be an overreaction. It would mean punishing large numbers of people and that would be unacceptable, no matter how many lives it might save. But depriving millions of Americans of the protection of the 2nd Amendment after several shootings carried out by mentally ill teenagers is, for some reason, not an overreaction.

It’s not acceptable to single out the relatively small number of Muslims in the United States to save the lives of thousands, but it is imperative that we single out tens of millions of Americans to save a smaller number of people. The public safety logic of this does not hold up according to the numbers, the ethics or the law.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s arms dealer in the White House is operating under a glaring double standard. Either an act of mass murder is a valid reason for depriving people of their civil rights or it isn’t. Either dangerous weapons should be kept out of the hands of potentially dangerous people, or they shouldn’t. But what he can’t do is what he’s trying to do, which is have it both ways, granting special privileges to Muslims abroad and at home, while depriving Americans of their basic civil rights.

If President Mohammed Morsi, who only two years ago described America as an enemy, and who has since then tortured and murdered his only people can be trusted with Abrams tanks and F-16s, then surely the American gun owner can be trusted with an AR-15 and a clip that holds more than ten rounds.

One of the first things our nation’s founders did was to establish schools and colleges. They believed that in order to pass the founding ideals to future generations, they needed institutions of higher learning to do it.
For example, those who conceived and built Harvard wanted their ideological legacy to continue:
“One of the next things we longed for, and looked after was to advance Learning and perpetuate it to Posterity; dreading to leave an illiterate Ministry to the Churches, when our present Ministers shall lie in the Dust.”
Why an educated ministry? Ministers were often the only source of information in the colonies. “No other thinker had such as wide audience as did the preacher in his pulpit, and his printed sermons and treatises were the staple reading matter of his parishioners.”[1]
Liberals understood that education was the way to change a nation from the inside. If you have control over the education of children and the content of the curriculum, you can change the direction of the nation without ever firing a shot. It takes time; but it can be done.
Muslims also understand this methodology. That’s why they are setting up schools in the United States. They are using our freedoms against us.

The 66-acre former home of the Woodmont Academy, a Catholic school in Cooksville, Maryland, is in the process of being purchased by a Muslim group to build an educational center from kindergarten through college. The goal is to have a long-term national impact:
“We have to look at our community’s growth in terms of the next 50 years to 100 years, not just 10 or 20 years down the road. This is an investment in the future of the community, for the Muslims who are here long after we are gone.”
Their own Muslim publication, The Muslim Link, describes the educational center as “the “Largest Islamic Project in America.”
Muslims understand that to put their children in a government school would mean that a large percentage of them would be lost to their Islamic ideals. In order to reshape America and make it Islamic, the process of Islamization must begin with the children. Year after year more Islamic-trained young people will make their way into American society and begin to take over the centers of power. We’re already seeing it in politics. Presently, there are two Muslims in Congress.
It may take a hundred years. It’s taken Islam more than a thousand years to get where it is today. Another hundred years is nothing.

Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/12/the-muslim-plan-to-take-over-america-from-the-inside/#ixzz2F1yND2Wz

The enemy knows nothing but the language of force’

The top leader of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood denounced peace efforts with Israel and urged holy war to liberate Palestinian territories on Thursday – one day after the country’s president, who hails from the movement, mediated a cease-fire between Israelis and Palestinians to end eight days of fierce fighting.

“The enemy knows nothing but the language of force,” said Mohammed Badei. “Be aware of the game of grand deception with which they depict peace accords,” he said in a statement carried on the group’s website and emailed to reporters.

His statement was a sharp deviation from the role played by President Mohammed Morsi in the last week. Egypt’s role in brokering the deal has been hailed by U.S. officials.

by Jeffery Klein

It is suddenly very disturbing that U.S. President Barack Obama is a well known, official “BFF” [Best Friend Forever] of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Not only because they are the ‘parent’ organization of both Hamas (Gaza) and Hezbollah (Lebanon)–both of which have been ‘open’ proxy ‘beneficiaries’ of Iran–all certified as ‘terrorist organizations’ by the U.S. State Department.

But, because newly elected Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi declared over Egyptian state run TV yesterday that his decrees were now ‘above the law,’ igniting violent protests across the country against Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, leaving the Obama-described ‘disgusting and vile’ anti-Islam video seriously paling in comparison.

Tens of thousands of pro-democracy activists converged on Cairo’s Tahrir Square, angered by newly elected Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi’s decree that he be exempt from judicial review, according to an Associated Press article today.

Morsi also proclaimed the same protection for the panel writing the new [Egyptian] constitution, along with the upper house of parliament, literally granting him the power to enact any other measure he deemed necessary to address any “threat” to Egypt’s “revolution.”

Mohamed El Baradei, former head of the U.N.’s nuclear agency, called Morsi a “new pharaoh;” no doubt referring to “The Pharaoh” from the Old Testament of the Bible, who was the most powerful ruler in the land at them time, and from whom God led Moses and the Israelites to freedom and the ‘Promised Land.’

The “April 6 Movement,” a one-time ally of Morsi–warned that the polarization could bring about a “civil war.”

One of Morsi’s aides, Coptic Christian thinker Samer Marqous–resigned to protest the “undemocratic” decree.

Ibrahim Eissa, chief editor of daily [newspaper] Al-Tahrir, proclaimed…

This is a crime against Egypt and a declaration of the end of [The] January revolution, to serve the interest of the Muslim Brotherhood dictatorship. The revolution is over and the new dictator has killed her. His next step is to throw Egypt in prison.

Eissa was not alone, as chants of “Leave, leave” rang across Tahrir Square, echoing the calls from when it was the epicenter of last year’s uprising, with others chanting “Morsi is Mubarak … Revolution everywhere.”

Isn’t it ironic that Mohamed Morsi would single-handedly ‘steal’ legislative integrity from his own people–the day after he accepted the solemn, gravity-laden responsibility for the ‘integrity’ of the new ‘cease-fire’ between Hamas-run Gaza and Israel, from U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who brokered the deal with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu?

Or was it a planned tactical move in a much larger strategy?

At the same time yesterday, on the ‘other side of town,’ Mohammed Badie, the top leader of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, denounced peace efforts with Israel and urged holy war to liberate Palestinian territories, according to a separate Associated Press article today.

Badie posted a statement on the group’s website that was emailed to reporters:

The enemy knows nothing but the language of force. Be aware of the game of grand deception with which they depict peace accords.

The Muslim Brotherhood doesn’t recognize Israel and its members refuse to hold direct talks with Israeli officials. But Morsi has said that he will abide by the terms of Egypt’s 1979 treaty with Israel, and many members say they are in little hurry to enter into armed conflict with the Jewish state.

Although Badie declared that “jihad [against Israel] is obligatory” for Muslims, taking up arms would be the “last stage,” only after Muslims achieved unity.

The use of force and arms while the group is fragmented and disconnected, unorganized, weak in conviction, [and] with faint faith—this will be destined for death.

Until then, he called on Muslims to … “back your brothers in Palestine … supply them with what they need, seek victory for them in all international arenas,” which is exactly why Israel will not allow Gaza to have ‘open borders’ with Egypt or drop its’ long-standing naval blockade.

Also telling is Mohamed Badie’s [official] title — “General Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood,” which implies a leadership role in the Islamist group’s sister movements across the world.

As Congress swiftly closes in on their obviously primary roles in the “Benghazi-gate” matter, how possible is it that President Obama and Secretary Clinton devised, then ‘implemented’ the Egypt-Hamas/Gaza side of this gambit, as a media diversion and to ‘buy time,’ while on their extended soiree throughout the Muslim world of Southeast Asia?

Copyright 2012 by Jeffrey Klein

A New Jersey Imam has come out in support of disregarding the U.S. Constitution in favor of instituting Sharia law.
Mohammad Qatanani, an Imam of one of the largest New Jersey mosques, said that anyone that criticize Islam was a direct threat on our national security. He believes this so strongly that he thinks anyone that speaks ill of Muhammad should be investigated by the Department of Homeland Security.
The Blaze reported on an interview with Qatanani:

“We, as Americans, have to put limits and borders [on] freedom of speech,” Qatanani, leader of the Islamic Center of Passaic County (ICPC), told TheBlaze. He explained that while Americans may ”have the freedom“ to speak their mind, ultimately, they “have no right to [talk about Muslim] holy issues“ as it will incite ”hatred or war among people.”
Qatanani said he thinks agitators who slander Islam, or, more specifically, the Prophet Muhammad, incite violence and hence, pose a national security risk that threatens the safety of Americans at home and abroad. Thus, America should disregard its First Amendment as it is typically applied and instead act in accordance with sharia law for the ultimate “good” of society.
“They [Muslims] think our [American] freedoms are too much,” Qatanani said. “The freedom of the American people is so different from their [Muslims'] freedoms. We believe freedoms have limits and rules, otherwise we will get people into trouble…Freedom according to Islam must be according to the Quran and Sunnah. You can do [anything] you like within the teachings of these two resources. This is the difference and main reason [for the conflict].”
Honestly, I think the Imam and the rest of the Muslim world needs to grow a thicker skin. As a bible believing Christian, I have one. I have to have one.
If Muslims don’t have a thick enough skin to deal with mockery or criticism without resulting to violence, or as the Imam said, becoming “a national security threat” then perhaps they should find another place to live, such as the area where they might feel at home with burning things and blowing up thing and killing others. Frankly I believe they need the gospel of Jesus Christ, but I can’t force it on them, nor can I use the weapons against them to convert them.
The interesting thing though about Qatanani is that he was nearly deported in 2008. According to NJ.com,
Qatanani, his wife and three children are facing deportation for his alleged failure to disclose a 1993 arrest by Israeli authorities on his green card application. Israeli military officials told the Associated Press he confessed to being a member of Hamas, a known terrorist organization. Qatanani denies the charge.
He’s also in the process of suing several federal agencies to force the release of any records that could bear on his ability to remain in America.
He is also admire in his community among many that are non-Islamic and even New Jersey Governor Chris Christie calls him a friend.
In the end though, Qatanani, must submit to the law of the land and that law is not Sharia. If he would like to live under Sharia, there are plenty of nations that have that law. America is not to be governed by Shariah Law, but by the Constitution.

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/09/us-imam-disregard-first-amendment-replace-with-sharia/#ixzz27KgeHxTb