Obama:Screw Easter,Happy Ramadan!

Ben Johnson,The White House Watch

When he was elected president,Barack Obama expressed his desire to
“fundamentally transform America.”On an economic level,that explains his plans
to siphon wealth from productive citizens to the indolent,entrepreneurs to union
thugs,and Main Street to Wall Street (and 142nd Street). Spiritually,it means
redistributing respect from America’s majority religion to every splinter
religion in the world’s pantheon. Although he could not be bothered to write a presidential statement celebrating
or acknowledging the severity of the
Armenian genocide
,the president of the United States has publicly commended
(And he complains when no
one believes he is a Christian
.) He has praised the concept of umoja
(black racial unity) while celebrating the phony,racist holiday of Kwanzaa. Now,he would
like you to have a happy Ramadan. The president wrote….


Save America; Get Outraged

Save America; Get Outraged

April 8th, 2011

Don Feder, GrassTopsUSA.com

Where’s the outrage?
Given what Barack Obama is doing to the Constitution, the economy and our
future, the American people should be up in arms (metaphorically speaking, civility-hysterics
take note). Citizens should be marching on Washington with pitchforks and
flaming brands in hand (also a metaphor).
Every city should see demonstrations to make the most raucous Tea Party rally
look like Sunday night in Pierre, South Dakota.
Instead, it’s a mental fog as usual. Hey, the unemployment rate is now
(barely) below 9 percent! Wasn’t that a cold winter? Gee, I wonder what zany,
drug-induced thing Charlie
will do next?
So, while America burns, we fiddle with our iPhones and talk about the
upcoming HBO series about vampire bootleggers and Borgias duking it out in
Other than Tea Party activists, the public seems supremely unperturbed by
Obama’s relentless assault on America. The president’s March 21-27 approval
rating was 45 percent. At the same point in their first terms, Clinton’s
approval rating was only three points higher – Reagan’s three points lower. Both
were re-elected, you may recall.
It’s true that since Obama occupied the White House, his
party’s stock
has taken
a nose-dive
– a net
of 9 governorships, 7 Senate seats, and 60 House seats. But there’s no
guarantee that trend will continue.
The leader of the party that whines incessantly about the influence of money
in politics has announced he’ll spend $1 billion to win re-election….
Read more.

Obaminable. Impeach the Muslim Putz!

Obaminable. Impeach the Muslim Putz!

February 21st,

The headline is reproduced from the conservative blog
SheikYermami. The headline shows the campaign to
impeach Barack Obama is gaining traction throughout the conservative
here to
sign the petition
to impeach Obama
. — Ed.


Scott Walker to Obama: We’re Focused on Balancing Our Budget. It Would Be Wise
for the President to Focus on Balancing His Budget

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker today told reporters, “I think we’re focused
on balancing our budget. It would be wise for the president and others in
Washington to focus on balancing their budget.”
True.   Cubachi

The state-run media ran interference for President Obama by spiking the Lara
Square assault story
.They knew it would damage Obama who helped push
American ally Hosni Mubarak from office….

Saudi King lays down the law to Obama on Egypt

Saudi King lays down the law to Obama on Egypt

Thomas Lifson


The Times of London has an exclusive report (subscription required)
that Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah warned  President Obama not to “humiliate”
Egypt’s President Mubarak, Fox
(a sister company of the Times) provides some details:

has threatened to prop up embattled Egyptian
President Hosni Mubarak
if the Obama administration tries to force a swift
change of regime in Egypt, The
Times of London reported Thursday.
In a testy personal telephone call on Jan. 29, Saudi Arabia’s King
reportedly told President
not to humiliate Mubarak and warned that he would step in to bankroll
Egypt if the U.S. withdrew its aid program, worth $1.5 billion
This is of course the very same King Abdullah before whom President Obama
abased himself (and our nation) in April 2009.

The Obama Administration is still trying to
its response to the crisis in Egypt, which has featured
contradictory statements from the Secretary of State, the Special Envoy, Robert
Gibbs, and the President himself.

At a time when America needs a strong and wise leader handling extremely
dangerous events int he Middle East, we have a president who has squandered our
standing and is seen as weak and amateurish.

Page Printed

at February 10, 2011 – 10:01:48 AM CST

// <![CDATA[//  

Obama gutted funding for Egypt human rights activists

Obama gutted funding for Egypt human rights activists

Ed Lasky


President Obama has all but ignored human rights in
developing his foreign policy. He stood down when Iranians were protesting
against the regime that oppresses them. He has shafted
the Tibetans
when it comes to standing with them against their Chinese
overlords. He has ignored Russian depredations against its neighbors.
Recently, it has come to light that he slashed funding for Egyptian human
rights groups that could have empowered democracy activists.
From the Los
Angeles Times:

Early in Obama’s presidency, officials cut in half funding to promote
democracy in Egypt. They also agreed to restrict certain grants only to
organizations licensed by President Hosni Mubarak’s authoritarian regime,
reversing a Bush administration policy of funding groups at odds with the
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, at a March 2009 meeting with
Mubarak at an Egyptian resort on the Red Sea, seemed to downplay a State
Department report documenting torture, rape and political detentions in
“We issue these reports on every country,” Clinton told a television
interviewer. “And so we hope that it will be taken in the spirit in which it is
offered, that we all have room for improvement.”
Egyptian dissidents were distressed by the administration’s message.
“All this sent a signal that was very damaging,” said Stephen McInerney,
executive director of the Project on Middle East Democracy, a Washington
advocacy group.

These are people who could have been our friends and allies and might have
played a role in forming the next Egyptian government. Now the field is much
more open for extremist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood to take control.
This would give rise to a radical regime in a vital part of the world.
Why did “President Spendthrift” find this one budget item to cut? Perhaps his
lobbyist pals played a role.
From Business

Until a popular revolt put his control of Egypt in jeopardy, President Hosni
Mubarak had kept a tight grip on power and billions of dollars in U.S. aid
flowing with few strings attached, in part by retaining three of Washington’s
most high-powered lobbyists.
Since Egypt hired the lobbyists in 2007, Congress softened a condition on the
foreign aid, added in 2005 over Mubarak’s objections, that barred his government
from choosing which pro-democracy groups should receive $20 million of Egypt’s
$1.8 billion in U.S. aid. That restriction became harder to enforce in 2009 when
Congress barred all foreign governments from determining who could get such
grants. U.S. pro-democracy programs in Egypt ultimately had little effect, a
2009 Agency for International Development audit concluded, because of a “lack of
cooperation” by the Egyptian government.
The three lobbyists are Tony Podesta, who has close ties to the Obama
Administration, former Republican representative Bob Livingston, and former
Democratic representative Toby Moffett. The three formed a joint venture, PLM
Group, to represent Egypt in Washington, according to foreign-agent records at
the Justice Dept. They were paid $1.1 million a year, says a person familiar
with the company.

The kingpin of this trio would be Tony Podesta who has built a powerhouse
lobbyist firm in Washington. His brother is John Podesta who  heads the Center
for American Progress – a think tank and activist group with very close ties to
the White House. John Podesta headed the transition team for President-elect
Obama and his Center for American Progress is not only Obama’s “Idea factory”
but also has placed many of its employees into key positions of power in the
administration (Van Jones was one of them until he was “resigned” in the wake of
controversies regarding his views. He found a comfortable sinecure back at the
Obama has made a mockery of his no lobbyist pledge through various loopholes
(one of my favorites was having White House officials meet lobbyists at the Caribous
close to the White House so their names do not show up on the White
House logs).
The Podesta brothers (John and Tony) are frequent guests in
the Obama White House.
Did a few million dollars of lucre flowing to Obama’s lobbyist friends gut
the pro-democracy movement in Egypt and leave a vacuum for the radical group the
Muslim Brotherhood to fill? Egypt might soon be ruled by a very anti-American
regime in a very key part of the world (The Suez Canal is only one reason we
need friends over there; a radicalized Egypt can spread terror throughout the
world and extremist Muslims have been killing Coptic Christians throughout
Has an ally been lost because of the machinations of lobbyists and their
friend in the Oval Office?
Who sold out Egypt? Who sold out America?

Page Printed

at February 09, 2011 – 10:30:28 AM CST

// <![CDATA[//  

Cartoon of the Day: Obama’s Idea of Being “Clear”

Palin: Obama’s 3:00 AM call ‘went right to the answering machine’

Palin: Obama’s 3:00 AM call ‘went right to the answering machine’

Rick Moran


The administration has been behind the curve on this
crisis for two weeks and Sarah Palin recognizes it. From

Sarah Palin, in her first comments on the uprising in Egypt, called
the situation President Barack Obama’s 3 a.m. phone call and said, “It seems the
call went right to the answering machine.”
Palin, the former GOP vice presidential candidate, spoke with Christian
Broadcasting Network’s David Brody after her speech Friday night at the Reagan
Ranch in Santa Barbara, California.
In the interview, the potential Republican presidential candidate said, “We
need to know what it is America stands for so we know who it is that America
will stand with. And we do not have all that information (from the
administration) yet.”
She told “The Brody File” she was “not real enthused about what it is that’s
being done on a national level and from (Washington) in regards to understanding
all the situation there in Egypt.”
Palin criticized the administration’s public response, saying “nobody yet has
explained to the American public yet what they know, and surely they know more
than the rest of us … who will be taking the place of (Egyptian President
Hosni) Mubarak.”

Palin is learning the art of Washington doublespeak. After correctly calling
out the president for his wishy washy response, she begs off taking a stand of
her own by accusing the president of not giving us enough information. Right
now, with events in Egypt murky and balanced on a knife’s edge, she avoided the
pitfall of backing the wrong horse while still zinging Obama but good.
Indeed, at this point, if we “support democracy” in Egypt we will have very
little choice regarding who the Egyptians themselves will bring into a
democratic government. Like the victory of Hamas at the polls, democratic
choices made in free elections are not always in our interests. If we want Egypt
to be free, it must be their idea of freedom, not ours. We can work to minimize
or eliminate any role for the Muslim Brotherhood, but in the end, that will be a
decision made by the Egyptians themselves.
If we are going to see Democratic movements succeed in the Middle East, we
better get used to the idea that we won’t always approve of the way democracy
evolves – even if a trojan horse like the Brotherhood is brought into the

Page Printed from:

at February 06, 2011 – 10:15:27 PM CST

// <![CDATA[//  

America Must Lead, Not Hype an Election


America Must Lead, Not Hype an Election

William Sullivan

By the end of the Cold War,
Americans had become accustomed to the dichotomy between Communism and
democracy, and as practitioners of democracy, we generally view it as a more
promising path than other forms of government.  So it comes as no surprise
that the knee-jerk reaction to the turmoil in Egypt is to hold democratic
elections so the people can decide for themselves who will provide the mandates
they must live by.  This is why it is fashionable for men like State
Department spokesman P.J. Crowley to suggest
that he wants to see “free, fair, and credible elections … the sooner
that can happen, the better.”  And Barack Obama has expressed
the wish to “transition into a new government.”


There is an inherent problem with
the application of this strategy when it comes to much of the Middle East,
however.  The Egyptians who now seek a reformation do not look to elect an
innovator vying for peace; they look to elect an enforcer.  You
see, to the fundamentalist factions that oppose Mubarak, someone has already
provided the mandates they must live by.  He has mandated that women be covered from head to toe and that they live
subservient lives without basic human rights.  It is even quite acceptable
that women be married and violated prior to adolescence.  This
sovereign has decreed that execution be the proper punishment
for homosexuality.  He has demanded that any who does not accept his
mandates is either killed or subjugated for a lack of faith, and that sacrificing oneself in that
endeavor is the greatest of all triumphs, worthy of divine reward.  And
most important to Mubarak’s opposition, this sovereign has mandated that Jews
be purged
from the land that Allah has given to his followers.


As you’ve likely guessed, that
person is Muhammad, prophet of the Islamic faith that roughly 90%
of Egyptians follow.  And those who wish to depose Mubarak follow the very
literal instruction of the Quran and Hadith cited above, and particularly the
last bit referenced.


Mubarak, though a Muslim, has not
followed these fundamental instructions quite so literally, it seems.  He
has worked to honor Egypt’s peace accord with Israel, an arrangement where the
latter returned the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt, which was a spoil of the
defensive Six-Day War and an important land buffer to deter future Egyptian
aggression.  Israel, at the behest of American counsel, offered
the Sinai as a sign of good faith to establish a relationship of coexistence.
And largely for the crime of honoring a peace agreement, Mubarak’s leadership
is threatened by fundamentalist followers of Islam.


History has shown that the procedure
of democratic election has little or no value when the seeds of a warped and twisted
ideology have found purchase and flourished in vast numbers of a voting
population.  Indeed, Adolf Hitler was elected by a populace that was very
aware of his anti-Bolshevism and anti-Semitism, as well as his purpose of Nazi
hegemony.  The fact that he was democratically elected did not make his
regime any less dangerous or evil.


So why are the president, his
spokesmen, and countless Americans so eager to see elections in Egypt?  It
is because they, too, are the victims of the very same proselytizing ideology
that afflicts the masses in Egypt who long for Mubarak’s ousting and Israel’s


The Muslim Brotherhood found its way
into American sympathies as a misunderstood Islamic outreach group, spreading
the bold message of a “peaceful Islam.”  The group has made an
impact in North America through subsidiary groups like the Muslim Student
Association (whose brand of tolerance is portrayed in this exchange
between an MSA member and David Horowitz).  The Muslim Brotherhood has demanded the resignation of Mubarak’s regime, prompting pundits like the
pro-Hizballah Reza Aslan to suggest that “the Muslim Brotherhood will have
a significant role to play in post-Mubarak Egypt.  And that is a good


As Robert Spencer juxtaposes with
the comment on his website,
Mr. Azlan’s optimism is very curious when you consider that a Muslim
Brotherhood memorandum specifically states the following:


Their work in America is 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
believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over
all other religions.


It is difficult to miss the meaning
in the line “‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands
of believers,” but our president would still endorse a popular election in
Egypt when the leading candidate to institute reform is the Muslim Brotherhood
— the very group that would suggest such deceit to destroy America?


The president likely does so because
he is pandering to the sensibilities of America’s misguided progressives, who
presume that parity exists between Islam’s followers in the Middle East and
those who follow other religions or those who lack religion altogether.
Not only do many of these Americans widely maintain this blind presumption
(usually on the weak basis of perhaps knowing Westernized Muslims), but it is
often vigorously defended by those who know nothing of Islam or its
history.  Consider how many times you have heard someone relate the evil
crimes of fundamentalist Islam or its literal dogma mandating violence,
affronts to human rights, and submission, only to have champions of political
correctness remind that person of the Spanish Inquisition, or the Salem Witch
Trials, or the poster child of Christian terror, Timothy McVeigh.  The
purpose of such defenses is not to address the issue of Islam, but to avoid
addressing the issue of Islam by suggesting that everyone else is just as bad!


The truth is that we Americans have
unrivaled privilege in harboring such blissful ignorance.  We do not have
to send our children to school on buses with a very real fear that a fanatical
suicide bomber will take their lives in efforts to reach a mythical paradise.  We do not
live in fear that in our hometowns, we have to endure regular rocket attacks and threats
of genocide by foreign factions that wish to convey that we and our country do
not have the right to exist.


It is not for our sake alone that we
must finally address the problem of fundamental Islam.  It is for our
friends in the Jewish state of Israel, who live with such realities and, at
this very moment, quake in anticipation of the outcome of the Egyptian crisis.


On December 5, 2010, Geert Wilders spoke
to the Israeli people in Tel Aviv.  His is a message that I and millions
of my American brethren share.  He begs:


Let us stand with Israel because the Jews have no other
state, while the Palestinians already have Jordan. … Let us stand with Israel
because the Jewish state needs defendable [sic] borders to secure its own
survival.  Let us stand with Israel because it is the frontline in the
battle for the survival of the West.


I would like to say this to my own
countrymen: let us stand with Israel in spite of our president, who would sit silent
as Iran cries for freedom from an oppressive Islamic regime that vows
a Jewish genocide, only to later take the first opportunity to suggest the
“transitioning” away from an Egyptian regime that has fostered peace
with Israel for thirty years.  Let us stand with Israel so their
relinquishing of the Sinai does not yield a launchpad for Egyptian rockets traveling to Israel.


We need to stand with Israel because
we believe in freedom and human rights, and it is clear that the Islamic
fundamentalists and the Muslim Brotherhood that seek power in Egypt do


A response as simple as an
“election” is certainly not a proper solution to the immense problem
we face.  Rather, we must demand that President Obama be the leader of the
free world that he was elected to be and condemn any who would suggest the
illegal existence of Israel.  It is time for him to lead the American
people in standing alongside our allies in Israel as they struggle to live as a
free people, without the shackles of Islamism, the perpetual realities of
suicide bombings, or the threat of a nuclear strike.


Because, as Geert Wilders so perfectly said
at the Free Speech Summit in September of last year, “we are all Israel


William Sullivan blogs at politicalpalaverblog.blogspot.com.

Page Printed from:

at February 06, 2011 – 12:04:30 PM CST

We Are Witnessing the Collapse of the Middle East

We Are Witnessing the Collapse of the Middle East

By James


If Egypt should fall, it will mark the beginning of the
end for what little remaining stability there is in the Middle East.  Jordan is
facing similar
, as are Algeria
and Yemen.
Lebanon and Tunisia fell in January.  It is highly unlikely that these events
are unrelated.  A combination of leftist and Islamist forces provoked the
protests, and we are likely looking at a ring of radical Islamic states rising
up to surround Israel.  Once their power is solidified, perhaps in a year or
two, they will combine forces to attack Israel.  If Israel falls, the United
States will stand alone in a sea of virulent enemies and impotent

So whom does Obama support, Mubarak or his enemies?
Obama wasted no time in telling us.  He supports Mubarak’s opponents, and
he probably has been all along.  The Los Angeles Times reported on Sunday that
the Obama administration favors
a role
for the Muslim Brotherhood in a new Egyptian government.
The Muslim Brotherhood, the oldest extremist Muslim organization, is behind
practically every Muslim terrorist organization ever formed.  And while they may
have publicly renounced violence as the LA Times article claims, internal
tell a completely different story.
And if that weren’t bad enough, Obama’s latest
to Egypt’s leader is that “an orderly transition … must begin
Must begin.  Now.
Simply stunning.
Juxtapose Obama’s statements toward our allies with his reaction to the
genuine uprising that occurred last year in Iran.  Tunisia:
“Reform or be overthrown.”  Egypt:
“an orderly transition … must begin now.”  Iran:
“It is not productive … to be seen as meddling.”  Meanwhile, candidate Obama
claimed that the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezb’allah have “legitimate claims,”
and we all remember his mindless counterterrorism czar, John Brennan, reaching
to “moderate” Hezb’allah members last spring.  Hezb’allah
The seeming inconsistency is astonishing.  Unfortunately, there is a
consistency.  Obama uniformly sides with our enemies but rarely, if ever, with
our friends and allies.  His administration is packed with far-left radicals and
.  And therein lies the rub, because what we are witnessing in
reality is this president’s un-American, anti-American, treasonous ideology in
full play.
Perhaps this is the real reason for Bill Ayers’s, Bernardine Dohrn’s, Code
Pink’s Medea Benjamin’s and Jody Evans’s trips
in 2009.  Following those trips, these same people made multiple
to the White House.
Obama’s breathlessly arrogant answer?  Not the same Ayers, Dohrn, Benjamin,
and Evans.  Sure.
A few years back, I
a quote by Lynn
, the National Lawyers
attorney jailed for helping blind sheikh Omar Adel Raman foment terror
from his New York jail cell.  One might think that atheistic radical leftists
would be foursquare against a political movement that tramples women’s rights,
murders homosexuals, and enforces strict theocratic mandates.  No such luck,
Stewart said:
They [radical Islamic movements] are basically forces of national
liberation. And I think that we, as persons who are committed to the liberation
of oppressed people, should fasten on the need for self-determination. … My
own sense is that, were the Islamists to be empowered, there would be movements
within their own countries … to liberate.
” … movements within their own countries … to liberate.”  Given recent
developments, Stewart’s statement was prescient.  But I think it had a special
meaning.  Because when movement leftists like Stewart talk about “liberation,”
they are really talking about communism.
It has been my longstanding assertion that Muslim terrorism is simply a
false flag operation, managed in the background by our main enemies, Russia and
Red China.  Almost since the beginning, Muslim terrorist organizations have been
supported and nurtured by the Soviet Union or its Middle Eastern surrogates.
Yasser Arafat’s PLO is a prime example.  Created by the KGB, the PLO was
always about providing a Soviet counterweight to Israel in the Middle East.
They were uninterested in the Palestinian cause, and they
said so
!  Alexander Litvinenko, the KGB defector poisoned by Polonium
210 in what was assumed to be a KGB hit, claimed in his book, Allegations,
that al-Qaeda’s number two man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was a Soviet agent.  And
while today Hezb’allah is the de facto ruler of Lebanon, the real power is
Ba’athist Syria.
David Horowitz wrote of the alliance between leftists and Muslim terrorists
in his seminal book: Unholy
: Radical Islam and the American Left
.  He describes in detail
how the left and Muslim radicals work together to achieve their mutual ends: the
destruction of America.
It is incomprehensible that President Obama does not recognize the
strategic significance of what is happening, and if he does, then his support of
Egypt’s sham “democracy movement” is a naked betrayal of our Middle Eastern
allies and, by extension, our own country.
Unfortunately, his view is shared by some Republicans who are so in love
with the idea of “democracy” that it doesn’t matter to them that the “democrats”
in this case include fanatic mass murderers.  At best, it can be seen only as
incredibly myopic and ignorant to support Mubarak’s enemies.  People make the
same mistake Carter did with Iran and Nicaragua: they commit the logical error
of assuming that just because a country’s current leadership is flawed and
“undemocratic,” that automatically means that someone else would do better.
Newsflash: they can do worse, and almost without exception, they do, because
people who take power by street riot have no interest in “democracy.”
If their street revolutions are successful, these Middle Eastern countries
will rapidly degenerate into radical Muslim thugocracies allied with our
communist enemies.  Israel will be the first target, and with Obama’s radically
anti-Israel orientation, the Israelis will stand alone.  We will be next.  One
wonders if Obama will then stand to defend the country he swore to, or if he
will be out in the streets with his fellow radical leftists burning American

Page Printed from:

at February 04, 2011 – 02:29:23 PM CST

// <![CDATA[//  

The Muslim Brotherhood’s Penetration of the Obama Administration

The Muslim Brotherhood’s Penetration of the Obama Administration
Posted By Jamie Glazov On February 3, 2011 @ 1:00 am In Daily Mailer, FrontPage | 37 Comments
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Pamela Geller, founder, editor and publisher of the popular and award-winning weblog AtlasShrugs.com.  She has won acclaim for her interviews with internationally renowned  figures, including John Bolton, Geert Wilders, Bat Ye’or, Natan  Sharansky, and many others, and has broken numerous important stories —  notably the questionable sources of some of the financing of the Obama campaign. Her op-eds have been published in The Washington Times, The American Thinker, Israel National News, Frontpage Magazine, World Net Daily, and New Media Journal, among other publications. She is the co-author (with Robert Spencer) of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America.
FP: Pamela Geller, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Well, perhaps for those who are familiar with your work and with your book, it is not a big surprise for them that Obama has endorsed a role for the Muslim Brotherhood in a new, post-Mubarak government for Egypt.
I would like to narrow in with you today about the Muslim Brotherhood’s penetration of the Obama administration. What can you tell us about this Islamist penetration of the White House?
Geller: Thanks Jamie.
The first thing we need to realize is that the Muslim Brotherhood operates in the United States under a variety of names and organizational umbrellas. Technically, there is no “Muslim Brotherhood” in the United States. But the Muslim American Society (MAS), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and others are – according to a document captured in a raid and released by law enforcement in 2007 during the Holy Land Foundation Hamas funding trial) – Brotherhood-linked organizations.
FP: Right, and crystallize for us why we need to be concerned about Brotherhood-linked organizations in the U.S.
Geller: Because, Jamie, that same captured document explains that the Muslim Brotherhood’s mission in the U.S. is “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.”
FP: And people with ties to these organizations are involved with the Obama Administration, right?
Geller: Yes they are, Jamie, in various ways. On the first day of his presidency, the President showed an eagerness to be friendly toward the Brotherhood: he chose Ingrid Mattson, president of ISNA to offer a prayer at the National Cathedral during inaugural festivities on January 20, 2009.
Superficially, Obama’s choice was understandable: Ingrid Mattson was a Canadian convert to Islam who carefully cultivated the image of a moderate spokesperson. But ISNA has even admitted ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, which calls itself “one of the wings of Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine.”
Mattson has also tried to set Jews and Christians against one another. Speaking at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government in March 2007, Mattson said: “Right-wing Christians are very risky allies for American Jews, because they [the Christians] are really anti-Semitic. They do not like Jews.”
But Obama didn’t seem to care about any of that. And so she prayed for Barack Hussein Obama on January 20, 2009. And it gets worse: after that, Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s Senior Advisor for Public Engagement and International Affairs and a longtime, close Obama aide, asked Mattson to join the White House Council on Women and Girls, which is dedicated to “advancing women’s leadership in all communities and sectors – up to the U.S. presidency – by filling the leadership pipeline with a richly diverse, critical mass of women.”
A hijab-wearing leader of a group with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and other terrorists and Islamic supremacists – that’s diverse, all right!
FP: Yes diverse all right. I wonder why we haven’t heard Mattson coming to the defense of victims of honor killings and denouncing the Islamic theological teachings that serve as a buffer for those killings. It would be interesting to know what she would have to say about your article, Honor Killing: Islam’s Gruesome Gallery, where you humanize this tragedy by showing us the faces of dead victims and surviving victims of Islamic misogynist violence.
But I guess we shouldn’t hold our breath waiting for Mattson to comment. I encourage all of our readers to look at that Gallery to not only get an idea of the viciousness of Islamic gender apartheid, but also of what kind of people Obama is has around him — since they are the ones who are complicit in and sanction this violence.
Ok, let us move on. Tell us more about the Muslim Brotherhood presence in the Obama Administration.
Geller: In June 2009, Obama appointed a Muslim, Kareem Shora, to the Homeland Security Advisory Council. Shora had been executive director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, a group that had generally opposed anti-terror efforts since 9/11 – as have all the Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups in the U.S. But more worrisome was Obama’s appointment of another Muslim, Arif Alikhan, to be Assistant Secretary for Policy Development at the Department of Homeland Security. Alikhan is affiliated with the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), which is another highly deceptive Brotherhood-linked group.
FP: Why did the President make these appointments?
Geller: These appointments were obvious attempts to show the Muslims of the United States and the world that anti-terror efforts were not anti-Islam or anti-Muslim. Shora and Alikhan would stand as moderate Muslims within the DHS, living illustrations of the iron dogma that all Muslims aside from a tiny minority were loyal Americans who abhorred Osama bin Laden and everything he stood for. But when he made the appointment, Obama didn’t notice, or didn’t care, that as deputy mayor of Los Angeles, Alikhan (who has referred to the jihad terrorist group Hizballah as a “liberation movement”) had blocked an effort by the Los Angeles Police Department to gather information about the ethnic makeup of area mosques.


FP: You mean to conduct surveillance in Los Angeles-area mosques?
Geller: No, Jamie. This was not an effort to close down Los Angeles mosques, or to conduct surveillance of them. There was no wiretapping or interrogation involved. No one would be jailed or even inconvenienced. Los Angeles Deputy Chief Michael P. Downing explained in 2007: “We want to know where the Pakistanis, Iranians and Chechens are so we can reach out to those communities.” But even outreach was too much for the hypersensitive Muslim leaders of Los Angeles: they cried racism, discrimination, and “Islamophobia” until the LAPD dropped the plan. And Arif Alikhan spearheaded their drive against this initiative.
Did Obama want him to bring to the Department of Homeland Security a similar sensitivity to the quickly wounded feelings of Muslims? I expect so.
FP: Talk a bit about that.
Geller: We are all well aware of Obama’s oft-stated commitment to defending and spreading the ideology of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. Remember: in Cairo on June 4, 2009, Obama boasted that “the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it….I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal.” Five days later, as if to show that Obama was serious about what he said in Cairo, his post-American Justice Department filed a lawsuit against Essex County, New Jersey, charging that the county had discriminated against a Muslim woman, Yvette Beshier.
Beshier was a corrections officer, and had been forbidden to wear her khimar, or headscarf, while working. When she refused to comply, the Essex County Department of Corrections (DOC) first suspended and then fired her – the khimar was not part of the uniform, and corrections officers were expected to conform to uniform policy. But such policies, of course, were drawn up before the days of politically correct multiculturalism. Instead of simply expecting employees to conform to company rules, now the company had to adapt to the religious particularities of its Muslim employees: Barack Obama’s Justice Department sued on Beshier’s behalf.
When Obama in Cairo boasted about fighting for hijab-wearing women in the United States, he promised to “punish” infidels for not submitting to the dictates and whims of Islam. The lawsuit that followed less than a week later showed that he was in earnest.
It was almost certainly the first time that the United States Justice Department had filed a lawsuit in order to enforce an element of Sharia, Islamic law.
On duty, Yvette Beshier, like all her fellow corrections officers, should have worn religiously neutral garb. Off duty, she could have dressed any way she wanted. But ultimately the Justice Department’s suit wasn’t really about the dress code at the Essex County Department of Corrections at all. It was about asserting Islamic practices in the U.S., and establishing and reinforcing the precedent that when Islamic law and American law and custom conflicted, it was American law that had to give way.
And that’s just how the Muslim Brotherhood would want it.
FP: Interesting. I wonder when Obama will make an announcement that will defend Muslim women’s right not to veil and not to fear physical violence or acid attacks on their faces when making that decision? Aqsa Parvez was killed by her father, in part, for not veiling. I wonder why Obama didn’t come to Aqsa’s defense? Thank you, Pamela, by the way, for coming to Aqsa’s defense.
So let’s talk about the upheaval in Egypt. What do you think of how Obama is handling the situation?
Geller: Obama approved of a role in the next Egyptian government for the Muslim Brotherhood just as a Brotherhood leader was calling for war several days ago with the tiny Jewish state. It was telling. What better way to unify the ummah than with tried-and-true, religiously mandated Islamic anti-semitism? For all of those quisling clowns desperately trying to scrub the Muslim Brotherhood, this declaration of war was a good hard slap in the face.
Further, it’s interesting how the Muslim Brotherhood is blaming Israel for Mubarak’s regime. They’re not blaming the $300 billion the US has pumped into Egypt. The Camp David Peace Accord (no matter how cold a peace it established) was a good thing. Now we hear that Obama’s would-be peace partners, the Muslim Brotherhood group Hamas, are going to destroy the accord. But they want peace with the Jews; get it? Me neither.
Obama has been secretly supporting this revolution for three years. Why? He ignored the people of Iran marching against the annihilationist mullahcracy of Iran. He gave his tacit support to mass slaughter where millions took to the streets.
Anyone who, like Obama, sees a Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Egypt as a good thing secretly dreams of the annihilation of Israel. Big media is not giving you the story. Instead they have the Muslim Brotherhood’s U.S. group on, CAIR, calling in from Egypt (and mis-identifying Ahmed Rehab of CAIR as a “democracy activist”). And that was FOX. It’s that bad.
I don’t believe Obama “lost Egypt”; I believe he kicked it to the curb.
FP: Pamela Geller, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.
And we encourage all of our readers to get their hands on Ms. Geller’s book, co-written with Robert Spencer, The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America.

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com