Obama Administration’s Breathtaking Arrogance on Questions about Inviting a Terrorist to Washington
One should always hesitate before jumping to the conclusion that the something that just happened is the worst thing that has ever happened — history usually has many worse “worsts” ready to hand. Still, if there has been a more breathtakingly arrogant performance by an administration official in the modern history of the United States than the one Jen Rubin reports on at the Washington Post today, I can’t think of it.
The Obama administration recently issued a visa to an Egyptian named Hani Nour Eldin, an operative of a foreign terrorist organization — formally designated as such under U.S. law — so that the administration could consult with the jihadist about Egypt’s future under the governance of Eldin’s pals at the Muslim Brotherhood. This is not speculation: Eldin brags about being a member of the organization and the administration concedes the visa was issued and the meeting happened.
Outrageous as this sounds, it does not do the outrage justice. The terrorist organization in question, the Islamic Group (Gama’at al Islamia), is the group led by Omar Abdel Rahman, the notorious “Blind Sheikh” currently serving a life sentence in U.S. federal prison for his foundational role in forming the jihadist cell that carried out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and was later thwarted while attempting simultaneously to bomb several other New York City landmarks. (I handled the case for the United States, back when its government thought jihadists should be prosecuted rather than cultivated.) The Blind Sheikh’s cell, essentially, was a U.S. branch of the Islamic Group (IG).
Moreover, the IG has committed numerous atrocities the goal of which has been to extort the United States into releasing the Blind Sheikh from prison. These include the barbaric murders of several dozen tourists in Luxor, Egypt, in 1997. The IG, in conjunction with its allies in al Qaeda, has openly and repeatedly threatened violence against the United States if the Blind Sheikh is not released and repatriated to Egypt. A staple of the Egyptian Islamic Ascendancy Arab Spring is the now routine and hostile IG-driven demonstration outside the U.S. embassy to demand the Blind Sheikh’s release. So seriously has our government heretofore taken the IG that the Bush Justice Department prosecuted the Blind Sheikh’s lawyer, Lynne Stewart, for material support to terrorism over her communication of messages from the Blind Sheikh to IG members in Egypt.
Despite being 70 years old, Stewart was ultimately sentenced to ten years in prison for consulting with and advising the IG. The Obama administration is now doing essentially the same thing Stewart was doing but calling it “foreign policy.” The administration is actively aiding and abetting members of a terrorist organization with a hellacious record of violence and threats of violence against the United States. That is not just a departure from American policy against negotiating with terrorists; it is a serious violation of federal law.
Hey, he’s the first post American President of the world–although he seems to be running as a labor populist touting protectionism while exempting a million illegals from deportation before controlling the open borders! Wait till you see who gets those Presidential pardons as he winds up his official duties. There’s more than one way to empty Gitmo and realign those racially disparate federal sentencing outcomes for crack cocaine offenders. Bet the Blind Sheikh and his mouthpiece get pardons too. In fact, we may get to see the first President ever to pardon himself for crimes committed while in office.
Great post again Paul. Anyone who is on here that has DP, please do not worry…this is not you forever. My DP has almost vanished. I still have mild DP, but my mind is becoming so flexible again and all DP symptoms are slowly going away. Your will too, i promise. It’s just what Paul mentions, it’s a unthawing process. One thing I ‘m noticing is that DP seems to be almost separate from anxiety. It’s an anxiety symptom, cause by a extremely tired mind, but it seems that once the DP starts to fade, problems or memories that might have led me into the condition reemerge, if that makes sense. Like I was anxious for years and then finally my mind tired and tired until finally full DP hit me with a vengeance. I’m wondering if Paul, Scarlet, or anyone else who has recovered from DP has felt the same way?
dafuq I just read?
I have always been the eternal optimist, believing we, as citizens of the greatest nation in the world, would always come out on top no matter who is in the White House. This megalomaniac of a President has incrementally chipped away at my optimism and replaced it with grave concern. Clearly he aims to tear this great nation down and rope us into a submissive position, dominated by his evil intent. God help us if he wins this upcoming election.
This is small potatoes. Obama has an AG who has already murdered hundreds, just from guns recovered, so probably thousands, of Mexican civilians. A slow motion 9/11.
I do not know why we do not make a much greater effort to get light shining into the dark places in our world. It is interesting to see how cockroaches scurry when one turns on the light in a dark room. People scurry even more when their dark deeds are exposed – the worst in human nature hates being exposed and does all it can to conceal.This is especially true of public figures and politicians.
What President Obama launders is morality itself – through skin color.
Exactly.
Eldin’s yet another, ‘misunderstood Middle Easterner’. Whereas Obama’s psyche believes the post-colonialists ‘owe’ the Eldin’s of the world whereas the terrorists will ‘make nice’ with the infidels/ zionists.
Relying ever more so on our historically indifferent/ voluntary amnesia-like citizenry to overlook this and previous administration’s middle finger to us and our nation of laws.
While giving this current crop of terrorists more and more unearned leeway.
Something to consider: The biography of Obama shows that he spent time during his formative years in Indonesia participating in Islam. The Islam of Indonesia is, I believe, Sunni. Rev. Wright (revealed in Klein’s “The Amateur”) claims he “converted” Obama to Christianity. If so, from what? From Islam? What type of Islam? Sunni! Consider further that Rev. Wright’s “Christianity” (sic) is built upon Black Liberation Theology, i.e., an anti-capitalistic, anti-Israel if not just plain anti-Jewish, Marxistic and TOTALtarian, i.e., for gov. central control of society (= the same propensity of Islam re sharia, in whatever flavor). Keep in mind that Obama in his relentless pursuit of identity named himself for political purposes “Barack HUSSEIN Obama”. The question that is being proposed is: Can it be that the positive experience of Islam (with its preferences in common with Black Lib. Theo.) had by Obama is also determinate of his “Christianity” such as he professes to be such. Can it be so that Obama’s neglect to NOT invite a member of a terrorist organization of Islamic flavor is a function of Obama’s previous Islamic phase in life? I wish to consider further.
I want to be absolutely clear here in what I am presenting for consideration! I am in NO way whatsoever suggesting that Obama is a Muslim. I find that rediculous!!! But he was once one of sorts (specifically Sunni), or the words of Rev. Wright about converting Obama would have no meaning or be a lie. There is no doubt that Obama had the “terrorist” (and not per se the Sunni) Bin Laden executed (and not captured as could have been possible). Obama has seperated terrorism per se from its Islamic roots. Consider also that Obama has shown a positive orientation towards the Brotherhood in Egypt (including monetary aid).
I return to the proposed consideration: Does the “Hussein” in Obama’s own chosen political name indicate a certain positive prejudice towards Sunnis (and reluctance to resist forcefully even the Shia’s of Iran) that motivates him to be obliging, even to a member of a “terror” organization so long as it is Muslim. Could the “Islam”, viz., Sunni outweigh the dilenquent fact of being a mere member of a “terrorist” group? I wish to reflect a bit more.
The important Russian Orthodox philosopher, Semen Frank, began life as a Jew in prerevolutionary Russia, became a Marxist and then converted to Orthodoxy. He never turned against his Jewish roots (and, indeed, as a refugee to Germany from Soviet Russia he had to worry about extermination by the Nazies). The point I am seeking to make is the following: Just because person X is converted to another religion, does not mean that said person automatically finds his first religious home to be in anathema. Indeed, in the case of Frank, he viewed Judaism as a foundational base for Christianity, not something to be detested, rather celebrated. I write “detested” because of the “core” Islamic position that converts FROM Islam are open to execution. Such openness implies a strong condemnation of deviance. I summarize: The biographical evidence indicates (1) a positive experience of Islam on the part of Obama, (2) a conversion to another religion with similar negative evaluations of the Judeo-Christian West, particulary in its free market devolopment and (3) the proclaimed intent to “fundamentally transform” America. I am suggesting for reflection that, perhaps, said “transformation” does not allow B Hussein O to grasp the inherently destructive nature of the Brotherhood in specific or CORE (= strict adherence to Sharia imposing rule) Islam in general. The connection between terrorism and Islam is denied. I am reminded of the historical fact that Chaimberlain just could not grasp the fundamental beliefs underlying Adolf Hitler. Chaimberlain held Hitler, whatever his non-gentlemanly words, to be a man with one whom can make a deal and who will hold to said deal. Chaimberlain’s strategy, one based on the clearly positive desire to avoid a world war, has become known as “appeasement”. Perhaps–and it only my suggested consideration–Barack HUSSEIN Obama is blinded by the “Hussein” in his biography and his “dreams from my father” to the point that his has adopted a strategy of “appeasement”.
Leonard – You say “The biographical evidence indicates (1) a positive experience of Islam on the part of Obama, (2) a conversion to another religion …” but the biographical evidence for the conversion is only the claim in Obama’s autobiography, and the claim by Wright. There is no other evidence for a conversion. There was no ceremony when Obama converted. There are no witnesses to such a ceremony. There is no photo or document recording such a ceremony. All we have is the claims of two men famous for fiction. These two men had a strong motive for telling Christians that Obama turned to Christianity and telling Moslems it never happened. In Wright’s “church” Moslems were welcomed not only as short-term guests but as long-term members. Many members of the “church” believed in Muhammed. They did not renounce Islam. No one baptised them.
The motive for telling Christians that Obama turned to Christianity was to advance his career. The motive for telling Moslems it never happened was to save his life. He could be called an apostate and, after a fatwa, be in fear of a killing. Ask Salman Rushdie. Now killing someone is a serious matter and usually people are slow to do it unless they think it is very necessary and it can be done. Obama makes sure that Moslems do not think it is necessary. He helps out the cause when he can get away with it – ie when the Christians don’t notice, or don’t protest too much. He often drops hints to the Moslems to show he is still with them in spirit, if not in name. Only once has a fatwas been issued which called Obama an apostate and called for his death – by a Sudanese imam after the death of Gaddafi. So far Obama has done the impossible – make Moslems believe he is a Moslem and make Christians believe he is a Christian. He is fooling enough of the people enough of the time. Note I am not saying that Obama is a genuine, heart-felt, enthusiastic Moslem. The biographical evidence that Islam was a positive experience for Obama is not convincing. He is just a very good at getting people to think he is like them. It is by no means ridiculous to say that Obama is still a Moslem. Being a Moslem is a social and political state, and it is very reasonable to suspect that Obama is still in that state. Tell me when he renounced Islam. Tell me when he renounced the Devil. In a press confernce tomorrow could Obama renounce Islam? He would only do so in the most indirect oblique way so that in Cairo enough people would say “It is a pretence – really he is with us.” Remember the Egyptian foreign minister who had a private meeting with Obama in the early days of his presidency? The Egyptian came out of the meeting and told others that Obama was a Moslem. As long as enough Moslems say that Obama is safe.
I find your point to be a worthy counter. Let us say for the moment that I will just simply accept the short biography given by David Horowitz in his “FrantPage” website. Your distrust of Obama is well taken. I concur. I am less dubious of Rev. Wright. Judging from his tactically acute response to Hannity, I have gained respect for his intelligence. Rev. Wright tried to fend off Hannity by citing a list of scholars that he had read and Hannity had not (thus disarming Hannity’s criticisms as uninformed). I have read, alas, all too many Latin American “Liberation Theology” proponents in Spain. Many show a professionalism worthy of scholars, which does not make a “worthy” scholar either correct or necessarily moral. I do not know how scholarly qualified the Black Liberation theologians cited by Rev. Wright are, though I can say that the Latin American ones are impressed by the development in the US of A. Based upon the impression made upon me by Rev. Wright I am willing to take the man seriously (which makes my fear of him all the more serious). Ed Klein effectively posed as a sympathetic interviewer (what the heck is one to expect from someone from the NYT?). Rev. Wright had no reason to lie to Klein, though he could have been distorting matters a bit. I am quite dependent upon Klein’s reporting. Please consider what I am seeking to do with my “considerations”.
I am inclined to hold that every human possesses a certain amount of idealism. I once saw at the Dachau Extermination Camp in Germany, a photo of a note by Himmler. He complained in effect that he had to surrender his belief in “Humanität” in order to advance the “Volk”. Having attended Catholic schools, Himmler was well aware of the universalistic use of “humanitas” in Catholicism. And it was just such universalism that Himmler was rejecting with his “Volk”. There is enough evidence that Himmler (and for that matter many of his SS killers) did in fact have trouble with the killing of humans, even if they be but “Jews” or slaves (double sic). Himmler’s 1943 speech was in effect a praise of the “unsung heroes” of the “Volk”, i.e., he knew that, even after victory, mass murder would not appear as something positive. Hence, Himmler’s heroes would have go historically unsung. Why have I mentioned such a pragmatically (in the sense of arranging with talent massive liquidation) evil person as Himmler. My point is that even the evilly perverted people of this world can have ideals. ALAS!!!
I am in no way seeking to compare Obama with Himmler, though I consider the abortion policies of Obama to rest upon the imperative to rid society of “unwertes Leben” (= Nazi jargon for “human beings not worthy of life”) to be condemnable. But it is not the same as the consciously chosen mission to rid the world of all Jews. Obama does seem idealistically bent upon a “fundamental transformation” of American society and he has expressed the Black Liberation (and Marxistic) thesis that the individual is only saved in the societal collectivity–and he means THIS world. I have sought with my suggested “consideration” to treat Obama as a man with ideals, ones that I happen to hold to be a fundamental perversion of our American constitutional history. Indeed, if Obama wins re-election I will not only continue on living in Germany, but I will become a German citizen.
What is my conclusion: If one is to accept that Obama’s stated IDEAL of a “fundamental transformation” of America is genuine, and I will take him at his word, one must integrate said idealism into an interpretation of Obama’s activities. I do not deny him a certain “worthy” or, at least, human-all-to-human intention of ideality. If one (and you are not “one”) makes my experiemental assumptions and if one takes Rev. Wright also as a type of “idealist”, then I conclude that it’s worth while dealing with Obama’s “conversion” to Black Liberation Christianity as a genuine idealistic event (not of the same stature as a Bill Graham induced conversion). If so, what to do with Obama’s Moslem experience? Well, I do not exlude Obama’s positive experience of Islam from being a factor in motivating his current policies or, in the case of the article that we are both reacting to, Obama’s sanctioning a visa for a member of a “Sunni” terrorist group. What might my assumptions have to do with my countercounterargument to your counterargument?
I hold, and I take it to be philosophically sound, that that theory is best that fits more facts. I see the superiority in my hypothesis to yours in my theory’s ability to explain Obama’s idealism without unduely adscribing undue motives to the man. I repeat, even a monster such as Himmler (or Stalin for the other side) has “ideals”. I do not see Obama as a monster, but as a person obsessed with a destructive, even TOTALtarian ideal, but no less an ideal. I think that my theory better fits the “facts” (naturally as I see them) than yours.
A final word: You contend that Obama has convinced Christians that he is a Christian and Moslems that he is a Moslem. If you can bring of evidence of, say, the Egyptian President Mursi of the Brotherhood stating that, well, “Obama is a Moslem”, then you have won the debate hands down. At the moment, I still hold that my “perverse” idealist theory is better than yours because it integrates an apparently positive experience with Sunni Islam on the part of Obama with his apparently positive experience with a “Christian” (sic) Black Liberation Church. My thesis is but a hypothesis, a plea for consideration (and I thank you and your critical reply), and not an argument that I can conlude with a QED.
Oops, I just reread your last sentence. I would like more info on just what was said. I do remember that some Protestants in their agreement with the Catholic Church’s opposition to the HHS Mandate proclaimed “We are all Catholics now”. This, of course, only meant solidarity with the Catholic position with reference to freedom of conscience. I have argued (and Glenn Beck did so argue while still at Fox News) that the opposition to (Judeo-Christian) Westernism, particularly to American excetptionalism, and to capitalism is common to Black Liberation Theology and sharia type Islam. But I take your point to mind. It is a good counter. But, as I wrote above, I want more details. In the last analysis we may be arguing about words. Nevertheless, I do remain constant to my insistence in the idealism that human, including Obama, make. Idealistic longings can be positive in effectw or bring a hell on earth (as Pacepa has noted in an article or too) Thank you again for your thoughtful consideration of my “considerations”.
Obama worships himself and the State, in that order.
In Syria the U.S. support islamic fighters lead by the Muslim Brotherhood against a secular political system.
Andrew C. McCarthy fails to understand that the Obama administration is simply consistent.
I take issue with the Romney attack in the last paragraph, simply because I intuitively understand that, while it is a very important issue, most of the electorate is kept in the dark about the current foreign policy decisions of this administration and it’s affects. Has anyone reported anywhere that we have reached the 2,000 dead milestone in Afghanistan? Hammering Obama on an issue no one knows about isn’t going to win an election.
The economy is what is being felt by all. The media cannot hide that fact from people losing homes and without jobs. It IS the issue that has the potential to remove Obama from office, and it appears to me that Mitt is doing a great job controlling his message and not letting other issues taint the waters, so to speak.
Some other points to remember about Gamaa Islamiyya: this is the organisation that ‘claimed responsibility’ for the attempted assassination of Nobel-prize winning Egyptian novelist Naguib Mafoux, leaving him physically unable to write for the rest of his life; that in the 1990s targeted countless other Egyptian writers, artists, intellectuals etc; and that also — according to Amnesty International at the time — killed ‘scores of Coptic Christians… deliberately and arbitrarily’.
If you doubt the barbarism of this group, and have a strong stomach, read up on the actual fate of the 60 or so European tourists they slaughtered at Luxor.
It is truly tragic to watch Romney following McCain. He must step up. For the West there is unlikely to be another chance.
Invite a member of a terrorist to the White House but make sure you take the forks away from all those dangerous latinos at a speech. Makes perfect sense in the upside down world of Obama
If Obama *were* a Muslim, is there anything he’d be doing to promote Islam that he isn’t already doing? Under Obama the number of immigrants, asylum seekers and students from Arab and Muslim lands has gone up (though the increase began under Bush). Aid to the Palestinians has gone up. Outreach to Muslims is now a NASA priority. Muslims are brought in as advisers at the White House, DHS, the FBI, and Defense Department, while a senior aide to Sec’y Clinton has family ties to a member of Egypt’s Muslim Sisterhood. Anti-terrorism training courses have been gutted of anything that “offends” Muslims. And the US is co-sponsoring (with Egypt) an OIC initiative at the UN to sanction as hate speech that which offends or insults religions (notably Islam).
Reread Obama’s speech in Cairo from 2009 (where he insisted the Muslim Brotherhood be allowed to attend). There one finds hints to what we would experience over the next three years. (Not that there weren’t other clues going back to the earliest days of his Administration – for those willing to look.)
“Eldin brags about being a member of the organization and the administration concedes the visa was issued and the meeting happened.”
As soon as Eldin set foot on US soil, he should have been arrested and thrown into Guantanamo Bay.
You can never “negotiate,” let alone “rehabilitate,” animals like this. We should be sending a clear message to jihadists all over the world that if you lift a finger against the United States, we will come after you no matter how long it takes. Even if the attack took place in 1993. It sickens me to see the State Department think it can convert Islamists and jihadists. How’s that plan working out for us right now in Libya, where hardcore Islamist and al Qaeda militias are about to take over that country? Oh, and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt really looks like they’re going to accept pro-western ideas on running their government. Trying to rehabilitate these killers is pointless and the State Department should know that by now. But, evidently, the don’t.
“Is the Obama administration saying that once terrorist organizations launder themselves through the rinse-cycle of “sharia-democracy” they are no longer terrorist organizations? If so, somebody better let Congress know, because our statutes still seem to say that supporting members of designated foreign terrorist organizations is a crime.”
Have Gerry Adams or Martin McGuinness ever visited the United States? If so, were they arrested? Was anyone prosecuted for facilitating their visit? As I understand it, both are top leaders in Northern Ireland but both are known long-term leaders of the IRA as well.
They had a good friend named Ted Kennedy to protect them.
The arrogance of this administration proves one thing beyond any doubt to me. The inmates are running the asylum. The contempt they view America and Americans with is criminal.
Why are you surprised that this would be the act of a man who said that the most beautiful thing that he ever heard was the five time a day Call to Terror.
The administration is actively aiding and abetting members of a terrorist organization with a hellacious record of violence and threats of violence against the United States. That is not just a departure from American policy against negotiating with terrorists; it is a serious violation of federal law…The law of material support to terrorism does not make an exception for members of the terrorist organization that the State Department, in its infinite wisdom, thinks are probably not dangerous.
This administration apparently feels empowered to pick and choose which laws and which parts of laws it will respect.
But then again, why bother with Congress when you’ve convinced yourself that you can rule like a dictator, when the Congress is content to let you walk all over it, and when Mitt Romney doesn’t appear to think national security is an issue worth campaigning on?
If you’re getting away with murder, why stop ?
Obama has been successful in skirting the Constitution and a lot of our laws. Pelosi made fools of us when she said,”If you want to know what’s in the health bill, you’ll have to pass it.” Time and time again, politicians make fools of us by doing as they please. I don’t begrudge them their salaries but I do object to the graft, corruption and their lavish retirement packages. Even their jail terms are in country club prisons. Every single one should be thrown out immediately, A lot of American voters are fools who want to get as much as they can from this country and many of the immigrants want the same thing. The Muslim man who killed his daughter in an “honor killing” did so in a shopping center in which there was a welfare office where many immigrants went to get their freebees,
When is treason finally treason? Will there ever be enough proof/evidence? Will anyone ever do anything about it, or shall we all watch the country slow burn until there is nothing left to save and the future shall read about our slow deliberate suicide?
Why is it surprising that the Obama people are welcoming a terrorist to determine how the US Government can work in his (the terrorist’s) interest? Our government has cooperated with blatant al-Quaeda supporters in Libya, supported an Islamist revolution against the government of Egypt and is now mildly supportive of an Islam-motivated coup in Syria. Back during the Clinton era we supported Islamist radicals in Kosovo in their war against Serbs even though their tactics included normal ethnic cleansing practices.
Based on the actions of our government, rather than the usual rhetoric of politicians and foreign policy types, the US Government objectively supports Islamism, including parties that advance Islamism by the use of terrorism (against non-Westerners). It shouldn’t be that shocking that our governmental officials want to consult with ‘our’ Islamist allies.
Next Gen Terror-Watchers Go Deep Into Al-Qaida, Tweet a Lot By Spencer Ackerman June 29, 2012
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/next-gen-counterterrorism/