We have three heavy hitters for you in this article, Rush Limbaugh, Andrew McCarthy and Daniel Horowitz, so we won’t say much. In a nutshell Obama:
- Is more concerned with a non existent Right Wing Extremism than in Radical Islamist Jihad
- Will not allow close scrutiny and investigation of Muslims in the United States
- Intends on importing as many Muslims as he can in his remainder of time in office
And the Republicans in Congress are in on the deal. And y’all want to know why Trump has been selected by voters for the Republican nomination for President?
IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHY YOU ARE A SITTING DUCK AND WHY THE PRESIDENT IS NOT PROTECTING YOU – LISTEN TO RUSH, THEN READ ON.
Sharia supremacists are not only shielded from scrutiny by U.S. intelligence but welcomed into the national-security apparatus.
Barack Obama has spent his presidency cultivating Islamists, particularly from the international Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates in the United States. As we saw this week, he chafes at the term “radical Islam” — as do his Islamist advisers. At their insistence, he had instructional materials for training government agents purged of references to Islamic terms that illuminate the nexus between Muslim doctrine and jihadist terror.
Obama’s vaunted national-security strategy, “Countering Violent Extremism,” is Orwellian. The term CVE supplants identification of our jihadist enemies with the wooly notion that “violence” can be caused by any form of “extremism” — it has nothing to do with Islam. By transferring security responsibilities from government intelligence agents to Muslim “community leaders” (often, Islamist groups), CVE actually encourages violent extremism.
These steps have been reckless. They have made our nation more vulnerable to the kind of jihadist atrocities we saw last weekend in Orlando. So obvious is this that many Obama critics have gone from thinking the unthinkable to saying it aloud: The president of the United States seems to be intentionally betraying our national security; even if not squarely on the side of the terrorists, Obama is such an apologist for their Islamist grievances that he might as well be.
I don’t buy this. Oh, I believe Obama is betraying our national security, but I do not think he is doing so intentionally. Instead, he has the good intentions, such as they are, of a left-wing globalist. The president sees security as a matter of international stability, not of a single nation’s safety — not even of that single nation that has entrusted him with its security.
To grasp Obama’s conception of security, we must revisit a progressive fantasy oft-lamented in these columns, “moderate Islamists.” This is where the Muslim Brotherhood comes in.
Here in the West, “moderate Islamist” is a contradiction in terms. An Islamist is a Muslim who wants to impose sharia (Islam’s repressive law) on a society. In the United States, that would mean replacing our Constitution with a totalitarian, discriminatory system. That is an extremely radical goal, even if the Islamist forswears violence and promises to proceed in Fabian fashion. Therefore, from the perspective of our free society, Islamists are the very antithesis of moderates.
For a post-American transnational progressive like Obama, however, the context that matters is not our society. It is the world. He is the first president to see himself more as a citizen of the world who plays a critical role in American affairs than as an American who plays a critical role in international affairs.
Viewed globally, the Brotherhood seems — in fact, it is — more moderate than ISIS, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and other infamous terrorist groups. I say “other” terrorist groups because the Brotherhood surely is one, which is why it should be formally designated as such under U.S. law.
As I outlined in The Grand Jihad, the Brotherhood promotes terrorism. Its doctrine prominently includes jihad, and it has a long history of violence that runs to this very day. Indeed, Hamas — a terrorist organization that the Brotherhood masquerades as a “political” “resistance” movement — is the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch.
Nevertheless, four things separate this very sophisticated organization from other jihadists:
(1) The Brotherhood pretends to reject violent jihad, especially when dealing with Western audiences.
(2) The Brotherhood opportunistically limits its overt support for jihad to situations that the international Left feels comfortable excusing (e.g., violence against “occupation” by Israel, or by American troops fighting Bush’s “unnecessary war of aggression” in Iraq)
(3) The Brotherhood purports to condemn terrorist acts that it believes, judging from a cost-benefit analysis, are likelier to harm than to advance the sharia agenda (particularly the Brotherhood’s lucrative fundraising apparatus in the West). A good example is the 9/11 atrocities (but note that even there, the Brotherhood, like the rest of the Left, always adds that American foreign policy is jointly culpable).
(4) The Brotherhood aggressively pursues a menu of nonviolent advocacy and sharia proselytism, known in Islamist ideology as dawah. As Brotherhood honcho and major Hamas backer Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi puts it, “We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America, not through the sword but through dawah.”
For present purposes, the most salient of these Brotherhood strategies is the fourth. The menu includes international diplomacy, participation in various countries’ political processes, exploitation of civil-rights laws in various countries’ court systems, strong presence on college campuses (administration, faculty, and student societies), vigorous fundraising under the guise of charity, and aggressive influence peddling in the media and popular culture.
Significantly, it is this menu of nonviolent pressure points, not violent jihad, that is the Brotherhood’s public face in the West. That is what enables the organization to pose as a comparatively moderate political and ideological movement, not a jihadist organization. That is what allows Brotherhood operatives to pass themselves off as “civil-rights activists” and social-justice warriors, not sharia radicals.
This meticulously cultivated moderate pose is the Potemkin foundation on which Obama and other transnational progressives, including a fair number of leading Beltway Republicans, cooperate with the Brotherhood throughout the world.
Obama is anxious to work with the Brotherhood on the Left’s theory that dialogue and cooperation always promote international stability — rather than convey that America’s principles are negotiable. Obama embraces the Brotherhood for the same reason that he negotiates with our enemies in Iran: the illusion that any talk is good talk; that any deal is a boon, regardless of how one-sided. The American wants peace through strength; the post-American globalist prefers peace “processes” and their inevitable peace “prizes.”
As a practical matter, Obama cannot negotiate with ISIS or al-Qaeda. He would if he could, but they won’t. They are interested only in conquest, not compromise. By comparison, the Brotherhood does seem moderate — but only by comparison with these barbaric, full-throttle terror networks. Unlike ISIS, the Brotherhood is amenable to suspending the jihad while taking the concessions it can get through diplomacy and political processes — then going right back to jihad promotion when these alternatives have been exhausted.
The Brotherhood is well regarded by many Sunni Islamist regimes with which our government hopes to cooperate in containing the regional aggression of Shiite Iran (aggression materially supported by Obama’s obsessions with deals and dialogue). There has even been a recent thaw between the Brotherhood and Saudi Arabia: Relations turned icy when the Saudis backed the ouster of Egypt’s Brotherhood-led government; but with Obama canoodling with Tehran, Riyadh has grown desperate for any allies it can find.
On the world stage, the stage they care about, transnational progressives portray the Brotherhood as “moderate Islamists,” partnership with whom is vital if we are to achieve the panacea of global stability.
The con job actually gets worse than that. The Brotherhood has figured out that “democracy” in Muslim-majority countries is the quickest route to imposing sharia. So it has taken on the mantle of “democracy” champions. By backing the Brotherhood, Beltway progressives purport to promote a “democratic transformation” of the Muslim Middle East. The fact that it would be a transformation to an anti-democratic, discriminatory, liberty-crushing system is, for progressives, as irrelevant as the fact that Obama’s empowering of the monstrous Tehran regime destroys the democratic aspirations of pro-Western Iranians. The progressive conception of stability — cooperation with rogues — is no friend of freedom.
The Brotherhood has devoted three generations to building an infrastructure in the United States — an impressive network of affiliated Islamist organizations. To partner with the Brotherhood internationally therefore requires embracing the Brotherhood domestically. But how can Obama and other transnational progressives pull that off? After all, as we’ve seen, the Brothers may seem like “moderate Islamists” when they’re in the same neighborhood as ISIS; but here on our own soil, an Islamist is plainly a radical.
Obama pulls it off by distorting law and history to sanitize the Brotherhood’s American Islamists.
Here, we must consider the progressive version of the Cold War. The Left clings to the conviction that the “mere” advocacy of radical ideology is constitutionally protected, even if what’s being advocated is the overthrow of our constitutional system itself. Symmetrically, the Left also holds that (a) anti-Communism was more dangerous than Communism, and (b) the “living” Constitution can be “evolved” whenever necessary to protect aggressive “dissent” by the Left’s constituencies.
Put it all together and you have Obama’s two core conceits:
First, the Constitution immunizes the Brotherhood’s ideology from government scrutiny. Our agencies must deem anti-American sharia-supremacist advocacy as “constitutionally protected activity,” no matter how virulently anti-American it is; no matter that it supports Hamas (material support for which is actually a felony under American law); and no matter how many Islamists make the seamless transition from Brotherhood indoctrination to membership in other, more notorious terrorist organizations.
Second, anti-terrorism is more of a danger to “our values” (i.e., Obama’s values) than is the regrettable but unavoidable fact that squelching anti-terrorism will result in the occasional terrorist attack — which Obama regards as more of a nuisance fit for law-enforcement procedures than a national-security challenge.
There you have it: Obama is not really pro-jihadist; he is anti-anti-terrorist. As long as they don’t appear to be blowing up buildings, sharia supremacists are not only shielded from scrutiny; our president welcomes the Brotherhood into our national-security apparatus in order to reverse what progressives see as the dangerous excesses of real counterterrorism.
That is how you end up with such lunacy as “Countering Violent Extremism.” That is how the jihad shakes off its post-9/11 shackles on the road to Orlando. So don’t say “radical Islam,” much less obsess over the carnage at the Pulse nightclub. After all, look how stable Obama’s globe has become.
You can’t make this stuff up. Democrats respond to Islamic terrorist attacks by blaming inanimate objects. Now Republicans are planning to promote the Muslim Brotherhood’s agenda. Which response is worse? – See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/06/gops-muslim-brotherhood-inspired-post-orlando-agenda#sthash.7zOYWHCk.dpuf
There are many legislative options at the disposal of Republicans who control both chambers of the legislature. They could start by placing a pause on refugees as Obama brings in over 100 per day. I just checked the State Department database and found a jump in arrivals from Syria of 238 just from June 13 to June 14. Overall, 1,320 Syrian refugees have been admitted since June 1 – every one of them a Muslim. The American people overwhelmingly favor a pause instead of a refugee surge while their elected officials can properly audit the short-term and long-term effects of mass migration from the most volatile parts of the Islamic world.
Instead, Republicans plan to package a bunch of nothingburger bills that, in best-case scenario, completely distracts from the core problem, and in the worst case, actually promotes the Muslim Brotherhood agenda.
Next, Republicans could bring legislation to the House and Senate floors finally designating the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group, thereby freeing up law enforcement do expunge them from our government and go after the mosques controlled by Brotherhood front groups. This would cut to the foundation of the radicalization problem inside Muslim communities in this country. It would also remove the Muslim Brotherhood foxes guarding the hen house within our sensitive counterterrorism advisory boards for the FBI and DHS. The bill designating the Muslim Brotherhood a terror group (H.R. 3892) already passed the House Judiciary Committee in February.
But no. Republicans will have none of that. Instead, Republicans plan to package a bunch of nothingburger bills that, in best-case scenario, completely distracts from the core problem, and in the worst case, actually promotes the Muslim Brotherhood agenda.
The rough plan for now is to package a bunch of nebulous bills that passed the House under suspension over the past few months into one bill and send it over to the Senate. Here are the three bills that are preliminarily slated for the package:
H.R. 4407, the Counterterrorism Advisory Board Act: passed on May 16, 2016: The bill directs the DHS to establish a counter-terrorism board led by a Coordinator of Counterterrorism. “The board shall: (1) advise the Secretary of DHS on the issuance of terrorism alerts, and (2) meet on a regular basis to discuss intelligence and coordinate ongoing threat mitigation efforts and departmental activities.” Thus, we have an administration that refuses to recognize the enemy, has Muslim Brotherhood officials advising on “countering violent extremism,” and yet, we have a GOP Congress creating a new office to coordinate bad policies instead of mandating good policies or statutorily bar the use of funds for bad policies. This is tantamount to offering the arsonist a new fire truck instead of tying the hands of the arsonists and installing a real firefighter.
H.R. 4401, The Amplifying Local Efforts to Root Out Terror (ALERT) Act: This bill passed by voice vote (without a recorded vote) on February 29 when nobody was looking. It is literally written for the Muslim Brotherhood. It directs DHS to assess its efforts to support countering violent extremism. Among other things, it directs DHS to assist state, local, tribal, and territorial governments in countering violent extremism; a review of cooperative agreements between DHS and such governments relating to countering violent extremism; and an evaluation of DHS plans and any potential opportunities to better support such governments that are in furtherance of DHS’s countering violent extremism objectives. As readers of Conservative Review already know, Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) is not a random milquetoast phrase; it is a term of art created by the Muslim Brotherhood to control our homeland security policy and redirect its efforts towards combating generic “extremism” aka conservative groups. At a time when Republicans are criticizing Obama for not naming the enemy, not only are Republicans doing the same, they are using the Muslim Brotherhood agenda.
H.R. 4820, The Combating Terrorist Recruitment Act: Passed April 26: This bill directs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to incorporate the public statements of former “violent extremists” or their associates into its efforts to combat terrorist recruitment. Again, the Muslim Brotherhood agenda.
Rumors are also circulating that the House might consider Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul’s bill (H.R. 2899) creating an entire new office of “Countering Violent Extremism,” essentially giving CAIR its own agency within the federal government.
Hence, at a time when Republicans should be banning the Muslim Brotherhood from government offices, as the U.K. government recently did, they are incorporating their agenda into their legislative priorities and legitimizing their subversion agenda under the guise of combating terrorism. In many ways, the Muslim Brotherhood serves as a more foundational threat than the Islamic State. They are the enemy from within and are responsible for radicalizing many Muslims in America who then go on to support groups like ISIS, Nusra, Shabab, and Hezbollah.
Worse, they have penetrated every level of our homeland security agencies. The latest example is the report that one of the members of Homeland Security Advisory Council’s (HSAC) Subcommittee on Countering Violent Extremism is a Syrian immigrant who praised the 9/11 attacks. But HSAC, along with the FBI’s National Counterterrorism Center, the DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, and the State Department Special Representative to Muslim Communities, have long been saturated with members of ISNA, MPAC, CAIR – all groups implicated as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial – participating in programs or downright drafting “homeland security” policies. I recommend everyone read Patrick Poole’s 2013 magnum opus detailing how the worst of the worst elements have been given top security clearances to help “counter violent extremism.”
After al-Qa’ida cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was teaching on Islam in the Executive Dining Room of the Pentagon just weeks after three of his disciples had flown a plane into the same building; when the government had to admit that the State Department’s Muslim goodwill ambassador to the Middle East and frequent White House visitor, Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi, had been one of the top al-Qa’ida fundraisers at the same time he was certifying the Pentagon’s Muslim chaplains; and even when attorneys for Sami al-Arian went into federal court demanding discovery documents showing their client’s outreach meetings at the White House, the Department of Justice, FBI headquarters, and the House of Representatives Speakers’ Office; there was not even a moment of pause before the government picked up right where it left off.
You can read my case study of Kifah Mustapha, fundraiser for Hamas who was given security clearance to participate in a sensitive FBI community training program.
Everyone is pulling their hair out begging for a solution to our national security problems. We can start by not pouring gasoline on the fire and bringing in more Islamic immigrants and allowing terrorists to influence every facet of our homeland security policy. For Republicans to validate that agenda and pass legislation codifying the Muslim Brotherhood’s CVE agenda is the ultimate exercise in perfidy.