Tag Archives: Muslim Brotherhood

Obama, in radical mosque, calls for other religions to be tolerant

Obama-Mosque-Visit_HoroOriginally posted at American Thinker

As the body count at the hand of Islamic extremists continues to rise in America, shouldn’t the president be trying to come up with a way to defend Judeo-Christian types, who cling to guns and the Bible, from Islamic jihadi types who cling to machetes and the Quran?

Guess not, because for his first visit to a U.S. mosque, Obama chose a congregation where a Sudanese native and former member of the Muslim Brotherhood, Mohamed Adam el-Sheikh, was chief imam for almost twenty years.

Why would a U.S. president even give credence to a congregation once led by a man who also lent a hand in founding the Muslim American Society, a Muslim Brotherhood-established organization interested in advancing sharia law?

Does Obama not care that in his spare time, the current executive director of the Fiqh Council of North America, an association of Islamic legal scholars, also helped found the notorious Dar Al-Hijrah mosque, led by the late al-Qaeda terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki?  Or that in 2004, while still serving as imam of the Islamic Society of Baltimore, el-Sheikh discussed Palestinian suicide bombers with the Washington Post?

If certain Muslims are to be cornered where they cannot defend themselves, except through these kinds of means, and their local religious leaders issued fatwas to permit that, then it becomes acceptable as an exceptional rule, but should not be taken as a principle.

Even the alleged terrorist-affiliated Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) commended Obama’s decision to visit the Islamic Society of Baltimore, saying:

For a number of years, we’ve been encouraging the president to go to an American mosque.  With the tremendous rise in anti-Muslim sentiment in our country, we believe that it will send a message of inclusion and mutual respect.

“Inclusion and mutual respect”?

Maybe CAIR should tell that to the two homosexual men murdered by devout Muslim-American/convicted sex offender Ali Muhammad Brown, who, after rinsing the blood off his hands, went on to avenge Muslim deaths overseas by also executing 19-year-old college student Brendan Tevlin at a traffic light.

Prior to the president showing up in Baltimore, White House spokesperson Josh “Not So” Earnest had this to say:

I think the president is quite interested in making sure that we’re affirming the important role that Muslims play in our diverse American society and certainly affirming their right to worship God in a way that’s consistent with their heritage.

Question: Who exactly is not upholding “the important role that Muslims play in our diverse American society”?  And in the 3,186 mosques located in cities all across America, which people are having their “right to worship God in a way that’s consistent with their heritage” thwarted?

Furthermore, rather than worrying about the 3 million Muslims steadily progressing toward becoming the second largest religion in America, maybe Josh should be making sure that, despite Obama, the Little Sisters of the Poor retain their “right to worship God in a way that’s consistent with their heritage.”

Meanwhile, the president descended on the Islamic Society of Baltimore, which is sort of like preaching about being less discriminatory toward Christians from the pulpit of the hateful Westboro Baptist Church.

In Baltimore, Obama mentioned bullied Muslim children and vandalized mosques and lauded Ibtihaj Muhammad, a 2016 female Olympian who plays with swords while dressed in a hijab.  Then he pointed out that “we have to understand: an attack on one faith is an attack on all our faiths.”

One small problem!  This is the guy who consistently assaults certain faiths.

In 2009, prior to a speaking engagement at Georgetown University’s Gaston Hall, Obama requested the crucifixes be covered up.  That same year, in order to have a “non-religious” Christmas, Obama suggested that the East Room Nativity be relocated.  Likewise, the president has blamed Christianity for lives lost during the Crusades and regularly ridicules the Christian faith with snide remarks.

As for God’s chosen people, Obama insulted Jews at a White House Hanukah celebration; publicly dissed Bibi Netanyahu; and, worse yet, minimized the threat posed by providing a genocidal anti-Semitic revolutionary theocratic state a pathway to a nuclear bomb.

Not to mention the president’s failure to acknowledge the worldwide genocide being waged by Muslims against Christians, or ignoring the fact that in America, Jews are ten times more likely than Muslims to be targeted for a hate crime.

Advocating for Islam seems to be Barack “that’s not who we are'” Obama’s most ardent public relations effort.  In his recent State of the Union address, anyone perceived to be indulging in what he perceives as anti-Muslim bigotry was publicly rebuked when he said:

When politicians insult Muslims, whether abroad or our fellow citizens, when a mosque is vandalized, or a kid called names, that doesn’t make us safer. That’s not telling it like it is. It’s just wrong. It diminishes us in the eyes of the world.

How about when Muslim extremists living in the U.S. shoot and kill 14 people at a Christmas party; behead a co-worker at a food distribution plant; or, “on a mission from Allah,” stab a store clerk to death?  Does that “make us safer”?

Besides, how is America elevated in the eyes of the world if our president remains silent after Islamic extremists behead two Coptic Christians in New Jersey, or slit the throats of three Jewish men in Massachusetts?

Since Barack Obama ascended from the mean streets of Chicago to the Oval Office in 2009, there have been approximately 64 people murdered by Muslim extremists on U.S. soil, and that’s not counting the number of American deaths at the hands of Muslims overseas.

And yet, in another attempt to address what Barack Obama calls a “hugely distorted impression” of Islam, the one suffering from what perceives in others hoped to remedy the problem by commiserating with the guilty at a radical mosque in Baltimore.

Not even after death do we part

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

The Arab Spring in Egypt is over.  The revolution managed to oust President Hosni Mubarak and transform the Muslim Brotherhood into a political force so strong they control nearly “half the seats in Egypt’s newly elected parliament.”

Although the Brotherhood is attempting to attain political credibility, according to the Jewish Virtual Library, the radical Islamic group gaining political power in Egypt “opposes secular tendencies of Islamic nations and wants a return to the precepts of the Qur’an, and rejection of Western influences.” The slogan of the Muslim Brotherhood is is: “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

In light of that level of religious zealotry, concerns extend to “Egypt’s secularists as well as U.S. officials.” The fear? The “Islamist group could remake the country, threatening the rights of women and religious minorities. Such fears were only exacerbated by the Brotherhood’s recent decision to field a candidate in upcoming presidential elections, despite previous pledges that it would not do so.”

Therefore, in an effort to ” broaden engagement with new and emerging political parties” following Egypt’s revolution last year, U.S. officials recently met at the White House with “Brotherhood representatives [who depicted] the organization as a moderate and socially conscious movement pursuing power in the interest of Egyptians at large.”

Sondos Asem, a member of the [FJP] Egyptian delegation, reassured think tank attendees and relatively gullible American reporters in New York City that they “represent a moderate, centrist Muslim viewpoint. The priorities for us are mainly economic, political – preserving the revolution ideals of social justice, education, security for the people.”

Marina Ottaway, a Middle East expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace who arranged the delegation’s [April 5th] visit to Washington DC, said that “People will be looking to see how much they are really beginning to act like a political party in power, whether they are thinking in concrete policy terms. Do they have any answers to question to economic problems? How much do they understand the world as it exists today and the concerns of other countries?”

Well, Marina Ottaway and the ‘people looking’ may have gotten their answer as the civilized world gasps in horror:  With half of the seats presently occupied by members of the Muslim Brotherhood the Egyptian parliament has introduced a new bill called the “Farewell Intercourse Law,” which proposes allowing grieving Egyptian men, up to six hours after their wives die, the legal right to marital necrophilia.

The idea for measure may have come from Moroccan cleric Zamzami Abdul Bari’s statements in 2011, which maintained that marriage remains valid even after death.  He also said that, despite the fact that perfumed dead husbands would probably rather be frolicking in paradise with 72 virgins, “permission for posthumous sex also included widows of freshly deceased men.”

If Egypt’s secularists were concerned before, and this new law is what Sondos Asem meant by a “moderate, centrist Muslim viewpoint,” then Egypt is in store for some very interesting changes as the Brotherhood assumes more and more power and rallies to get one of their own elected president.

Nevertheless, besides sanctioning sex with deceased women, other “moderate and socially conscious” measures being proposed by the Islamist-stacked Egyptian Parliament is to have “the minimum age of marriage lowered [from 18] to 14,” and to repeal an Egyptian woman’s right to “education and employment.”

So, it appears the breath of fresh Arab spring air that blew over Egypt — the one that swept the Muslim Brotherhood into high positions of power — brought with it also “the parliamentary attacks on women’s rights.”  It is attacks such as those that have “drawn great criticism from women’s organizations, who … accuse the [Brotherhood] MPs of wishing to destroy the little gains Egyptian women attained after long years of organized struggle.”

One women’s group voicing objection to the changes proposed by parliament is Egypt’s National Council for Women.  The NCW maintains that besides sanctioning sex with the dead, “marginalizing and undermining the status of women would negatively affect the country’s human development.” In a recent column, Egyptian journalist Amro Abdul Samea reported that the head of the National Council of Women, Dr. Mervat al-Talawi, has complained about the legislation, which she claims has been introduced under “alleged religious interpretations.”

Silly, silly Mervat. This is the Muslim Brotherhood we’re talking about here, and ‘religious interpretations’ are what they’re all about.  Therefore, word to the wise women of Egypt, married or single  al-Talawi and The National Council for Women had better beware, lest they find themselves subjected to the “Farewell Intercourse” law sooner rather than later.

And so, congratulations! Besides the Arab Spring ejecting Hosni Mubarak’s corruption from Egypt, when he left he took with him his wife Suzanne who, during her husband’s tenure, did work on behalf of issues that granted the Egyptian women many of the rights now in jeopardy.

Still, based on his constant effort to “offer a hand of friendship to the Muslim world,” besides meeting with supporters of necrophilia at the White House, America’s Arab Spring-supportive president has not yet reneged on his plan to bestow  $800 million in economic aid to Muslim countries.  Nor has he withdrawn plans to maintain military aid to Egypt, the nation whose Islamist parliament is presently proposing bills denying women the right to the innocence of childhood, education, employment, and now has added to that list, denial of a dignified death.

With that in mind, regardless of what goes down in the Islamist-dominated Egyptian parliament, the larger issue resides here at home. Americans should be aware that although Barack Obama likes to promote himself as a champion of defending the weaker sex, especially in the so-called “war on women,” his 2012 budget has allotted monetary support to a nation whose parliament is proposing a bill that will not only continue to allow and encourage the abuse of women throughout their lives, but now wants to extend it past their death.

Barack’s Anti-Ally Initiative

When pro-Obama pundits tout that the President has accomplished a lot in two years, they are correct. Who else in American history has worked so boldly and tirelessly to weaken our nation and undermine national security by hurting our greatest allies and cultivating friendships that are, at best, dubious?

Policy-wise, Barack has done many appalling things. However, the pièce de résistance was finding out that “British nuclear secrets” were used as a “bargaining chip” to woo Russia into an arms control treaty.  In other words, Obama gave away Britain’s nuclear secrets to get Russia to agree to sign a treaty that at the end of the day weakens America.

President Obama began the anti-ally initiative by deciding to suspend plans for a missile defense shield in Europe. The first to be devastated by Obama handing Russia a “diplomatic victory” was Poland, who called the decision to shelve the missile defense plan that Russia opposed “catastrophic.”

G.W. Bush initiated the eastern European missile shield plan in response to what the United States perceived to be a threat from a nuclear Iran. Therefore, Poland was the first ally to be betrayed. By way of Barack Obama, the United States told Poland: “We care more about pleasing our allies’ enemies than we do about our ensuring the safety of our allies.” By placing friends in harm’s way, Obama “gave meaning to those words.”

Besides betraying Poland, taking the bust of Winston Churchill out of the Oval Office and sending it back to Britain and “dumping” Bibi Netanyahu to rush off to dinner should have been a red flag for Britain and Israel, because according to Wikileaks, in 2009:

A series of classified messages sent to Washington by US negotiators show how information on Britain’s nuclear capability was crucial to securing Russia’s support for the “New START” deal.

Although the treaty was not supposed to have any impact on Britain, the leaked cables show that Russia used the talks to demand more information about the UK’s Trident missiles, which are manufactured and maintained in the US.

Washington lobbied London in 2009 for permission to supply Moscow with detailed data about the performance of UK missiles. The UK refused, but the US agreed to hand over the serial numbers of Trident missiles it transfers to Britain.

What Barry did to make friends with a bully was give away the secret combination to his best friend’s new bicycle lock.  And for what? To suck up to a thug who, first chance he gets, plans to show appreciation by beating the tar out of the traitor and adding his bike to the collection too.

Obama hasn’t figured out yet that an alliance built on untrustworthiness stands on shaky ground. If Russia signs a treaty with someone who betrayed an ally, how much faith could Russia have in Obama’s capacity to keep his word?

The President’s inability to listen to the voice of the American people on issues like stimulus, health care reform, and the deficit proves that his haughty self-importance is such that, regardless of the ramifications for those affected, Barry the Inflictor cares little about the results nor the resistance and has taken that attitude global.

The British had a policy of “refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.” Britain’s desire to “maintain some secrecy to compensate for the relatively small size of its arsenal” meant nothing to Obama who, in an effort to elevate his status with the wrong crowd, managed to make the world a more treacherous place.

Apparently, Obama knows better, even when it comes to disrespecting the national security wishes of a supposed ally and revealing what Great Britain desired to keep top secret. It’s no wonder Obama and Michelle aren’t on the royal wedding guest list.

Today’s poor decision could be tomorrow’s disaster. Obama obviously hasn’t thought through the potential consequence of Britain, in return for the US betraying top-secret information, packing up and leaving Iraq and Afghanistan.

Either way, Obama has proven here and abroad, domestically and internationally, that he doesn’t respect anyone’s wishes but his own.  In this particular case, if a spy revealed British secrets to the Russians they’d be accused of espionage.

Poland and Britain are “allies” who have officially been spurned as the President kindles a romance with a Russian bear. Based on Obama’s stance it appears as if the next ally to be kicked out of the clubhouse is Israel, Obama sided against Mubarak in support of the Israel-hating Muslim Brotherhood having a say in Egypt’s new government.

Although in many circles the Egyptian president is considered a dictator, Bibi Netanyahu is convinced with Mubarak gone Egypt is even more vulnerable to anti-Zionist Islamist rule, a result more devastating for Israel than removing missile shields from Poland and selling Britain’s nuclear secrets to Russia.

What Obama did at the expense of British and American national security was so absurd that America may find out someday Barack left Israel at the mercy of her enemies and assisted the Iranian regime in the quest to obtain a nuclear bomb.

In a few short years, Barack Obama has proven to be the worst example yet of loyalty, faithfulness and allegiance to both America and her closest allies. Who would have thought the President of the United States would be the source of instruction on how not to treat your friends.

Obama muddles ahead

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Amidst anarchy in Egypt and rumors that Hosni Mubarak plans to step down so that Mohamed ElBaradei, supposed “point man” for the “outlawed” Muslim Brotherhood, can seize control of the reformed Egyptian government, in an effort to reassure a tense world President Barack Obama finally took to the stage with an update on the crisis in Egypt.

Somber and in control, Barack assured the people that in between basketball games and cocktail parties for political advisors, his “administration has been in close contact with our Egyptian counterparts and a broad range of the Egyptian people, as well as others across the region and across the globe.” Then Obama, a man who seems to lack core values, gave his word that when it comes to Egypt, “a set of core principles” leads the way.

The President espoused opposition to violence, commended the Egyptian military for “professionalism and patriotism,” and thanked them for “allowing peaceful protests while protecting the Egyptian people.” Ever the promoter of “change,” Barack Obama urged “the military to continue its efforts to help ensure that this time of change is peaceful.”
Maintaining a serious tone, Obama never mentioned the Tea Party, Fairness Doctrine or Internet “kill switch,” but claimed to “stand for universal values,” such as “freedom of assembly…speech and…access to information.”

Midway through the address, the always predictable Obama accidentally slid into campaign mode and spoke out on “behalf of the need for change.”   Regaining composure Obama shared that President Mubarak recognized that “the status quo is not sustainable and that a change must take place,” which coincidentally are the same words Obama uses whenever referencing health care reform, the war in Afghanistan, or when out promoting new/justifying old  failed policies.

The President said, “Indeed, all of us who are privileged to serve in positions of political power do so at the will of our people…The voices of the Egyptian people tell us that this is one of those moments; this is one of those times.” Amazingly, Obama hears the Egyptian people 6,000 miles away, yet seems hearing-impaired when it comes to listening to the voice of the American people about ObamaCare.

Nevertheless, the President shared that he told Mubarak, “Now, it is not the role of any other country to determine Egypt’s leaders. Only the Egyptian people can do that.” Still, it did seem as if Obama offered Mubarak a polite suggestion, nudging the toppled president toward “an orderly transition [that] must be meaningful, … peaceful, and …must begin now” – emphasis on the “must begin now.”

Speaking on behalf of old friends, Obama allegedly expressed a willingness to support the Muslim Brotherhood’s role in a reformed Egyptian government.  However, in this statement, Obama referenced “free and fair” elections and suggested Mubarak’s three decades-old dictatorship be replaced with a system influenced by an ideology that supports a Islamic theocracy rooted in Sharia law, or what the President loosely defines as a “broad spectrum of Egyptian voices and opposition parties.”

Even though it appears “aspirations of the Egyptian people” may have been manipulated by an Islamist organization with “stated goals … to instill the Qur’an and Sunnah as the ‘sole reference point for … the Muslim family, individual, community … and state,'” as well as the annihilation of Israel, Obama did not hesitate to propose Egypt’s new government be “grounded in democratic principles.”

Despite the fact that an overconfident Muslim Brotherhood told “Egyptians [to] prepare for war with Israel,” President Obama vowed that throughout Egypt’s transition process, “the United States will continue to extend the hand of partnership and friendship to Egypt.”

The President, who ignores the voice of the American people and who burdened generations of children with insurmountable debt, spoke with respect for the younger generation who took to the streets of Cairo, which is quite contrary to Obama’s opinion of peaceful protestors in America. Obama said:  “We hear your voices…[and] have an unyielding belief that you will determine your own destiny and seize the promise of a better future for your children and your grandchildren.”

So a short recap of Obama’s most recent comments on the crisis in Egypt include: Mention of . America did find out that the President does support free speech, but just for Egyptian protestors, and an Internet “kill switch,” but only if his hand is on it.

While speaking about Egypt, America was reminded that the President saying “the status quo is unsustainable” is an all-purpose justification for whatever Obama wants to defend or support. Thankfully, the nation also learned that our esteemed leader isn’t profoundly deaf, only conveniently hearing-impaired when within earshot of certain voices, and that “passion and dignity” are respectable traits in protestors, but only if no one is waving tea bags around.

Above all, it’s likely that America was relieved to find out that Barack Hussein Obama is open to Sharia law having input into Egyptian governance, as long as radicals pinky-swear to reject terrorism and accept democratic goals.

Summing up his short public statement on the crisis, Obama ended by sharing his opinion that “truth” is defined as a “sense of community.”  Yet, the President retreated from the podium without mentioning the single most glaring truth of all — ousting Mubarak’s regime and allowing the participation of an 80 year-old religious brotherhood, regardless of how minimal the influence, or smooth the transition, will eventually make 30 years of repressive government seem like Egyptian paradise lost.

%d bloggers like this: