Get PJ Media on your Apple

Roger L. Simon

Obama’s Strange Love Affair with the Muslim Brotherhood

August 19th, 2013 - 10:04 pm

obama_muslim_brotherhood_big_8-19-13

It’s hard to fathom how or why our administration ever thought the Muslim Brotherhood saw democracy as other than a means to an end — and a particularly repellent one at that — in the first place.

It’s not as if the MB is subtle. They have proclaimed who they are since their founding by Hasan al Banna in 1928 and have not wavered in any significant way since in their global jihadist goals. They have also been unstinting in their massive misogyny, homophobia and rigid support of Shariah law über alles (quite literally über alles, since the Brotherhood were — virtually the last still unrepentant — allies of Hitler in WWII).

You know, liberal stuff.

Democracy, as their kissing cousin Turkey’s Erdogan so blithely explained, is “like a streetcar. When you come to your stop, you get off.” Or, as one of the Brotherhood’s own internal documents put it in that oh-so-distant year of 2007, they (the MB) are dedicated to “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house.”

That’s from the Muslim Brotherhood’s “General Strategic Goal” for North America. The “miserable house” of Western civilization of course includes all the tenets of classical liberalism and most of those laterally paid lip service by today’s soi-disant “liberals” (rights of women, rights of homosexuals, freedom of expression, ad tedium, ad hypocrisia).

And yet those same liberals — not to mention the increasingly addle-brained John McCain who seemingly can’t tell an al-Qaeda operative from Paul Revere — are suddenly pounding Saharan sand in outrage at the extreme treatment of the Brotherhood at the hands of the mean Egyptian military.

Give me the proverbial break!

The only hope for democracy in Egypt — and it’s a mighty slim one, maybe the size of a third of an M&M crushed under a camel — is the military. At least they’re not insane.

Nevertheless, the president of the United States is not amused. We read our government is secretly “reviewing” our support of Egypt. They are urging the Egyptian military to negotiate with the Brotherhood, the same religious fanatics who evidently just told 24 Egyptian policemen to lie face down in the Sinai desert and summarily executed them, the same madmen who are running all over Egypt burning down Christian churches.

What is the explanation for this absolutely self-destructive, even idiotic, policy on our part?

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
I would note that Obama's father is a muslim. I would also note that Obama was educated in muslim schools when he was growing up. I would further note that under Koranic law the child is automatically the same religion as the father; its why under the Koran a muslim man can marry a christian woman but a muslim woman would be under death sentence if she married a christian man.

Bottom line: he is at the very least a muslim sympathizer of the highest order, and at the most a very real muslim hiding his faith to further his ends.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Let's face it, the fact is that Commander Zero was raised as a Muslim. While he may have "converted" to Christianity on orders of his wife, whether he really accepts that is open to some speculation. If he really did convert then under Sharia law he is an apostate and should be treated as such by any Muslim who comes in contact with him.

Besides that, Egypt has been under some form of "dictatorial" rule for 3000+ years. We exhibit the worst forms of Western narcissism when we insist on "democracy" for everyone. Frankly, the choice for the Egyptian people is a more or less corrupt dictatorship run by the military and secularists or one under Sharia law run by the MB. Personally, I believe the people of Egypt will be better off under the military, most certainly the women will.

The Saudis and other Gulf Coast nations have assured the military that those countries will pick-up any loss in aid from the EU/US. The Egyptians might well invite our ambassador to take an extended vacation.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Letter from Bjorn Larsen to Diana West on the attempts by Alinskyites Horowitz and Radosh to silence her.

Diana -

As a long-time advocate for free speech; long involvement with the International Free Press Society; and as you know, an associate of some of the bravest free speech practitioners in the world, I find the Horowitz/Radosh-led attacks on you to be beneath contempt. For them to pretend to be part of a “freedom” movement (maybe excluding speech?) while acting like school yard bullies, is laughable.

I have read your book American Betrayal, cover to cover – and I found myself deeply shaken, somewhat analogous to the day I finished Atlas Shrugged as a young man, the overall feeling one of serious letdown in my history teachers and ‘why have I never heard this before’? Your sources are there for all to see and your chain of events and conclusions follow them scrupulously. Does that mean that every claim you make and question you raise are necessarily accurate descriptions of the causes of the great historical events? Yet, is this question even important in the raging attacks?

I submit that the facts of your book are not relevant to the personal attacks at hand and your attackers are not remotely interested in your evidence nor your conclusions.

You are being attacked for daring to raise unspeakable questions, questions not to be debated even in so-called “scholarly” circles. You have dared to challenge a set of sacred establishment cows – and more salutes to you! Islam calls this blasphemy, speaking unspeakable things about Mohammed. Clearly we are suffering from our own dark-secret blasphemy conditions, just like you outlined in American Betrayal - but at FrontPage Magazine of all places?

David Horowitz, after removing the initial Tapson (positive) review of American Betrayal and replacing it with Radosh’ (negative) review, has seen fit to write to you: "Our decision to remove the review of American Betrayal was not because it offered an incorrect opinion that we wanted to suppress. The review was removed because the reviewer was as incompetent to provide an informed assessment of your book as you were to write it".

When he further suggests, in a later FPM editorial, “Diana should not have written this book”, it becomes clear that his objective is to shut you up, not to argue on any evidence. This resembles an Inquisition hearing in old Spain. Horowitz should apologize.

Curious minds have always made progress possible. Denying inconvenient truths by slandering the messenger is an old Communist practice – I reject, along with many others, Horowitz’s attempts at silencing you.

Feel free to publish as you see fit.

Bjorn
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (159)
All Comments   (159)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
The only evidence Obama is not a Muslim is that he says he's not.

Hardly persuasive.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"I know that’s a vicious and importunate thing to say"

importunate is the adjectival form of importune defined as:

"to press or beset with solicitations; demand with urgency or persistence."

I think you meant something like impolitic, but I am not sure.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The aritcle correctly describes obama as an apoligist for the muslim brotherhood, but why is that surprising, since most of the US left are apoligists for radical islam.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
For the idiots who think it's "fair" (or something) for the Moslem Brotherhood to be "included" in elections--

how about keeping the KKK electorally relevant here, or the Nazi Party, or the Communists?

Would our country be improved by the participation of the KKK in elections? I don't think so.

I don't think it works, to have a party that's sworn to overthrow the law of the land get to participate in making those laws.

That's certainly one of the problems with sharia...

If the Moslem Brotherhood members are those who kill other Egyptians, burn down Coptic churches, etc., then it looks as though many of them may have to be killed before Egypt can enjoy anything like stability.

Weren't the Moslem Brothers the ones who murdered Anwar Sadat?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Tell me how the KKK differs from the modern Democratic Party?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The man is a Muslim. It is so obvious. This is why he hid all his past info.
He is a liar. So he pretends he is a Christian because he had to. He will do anything needed to further his agenda which is the same as the MB agenda.
duh
He has been teasing us by outing himself as a Muslim several times but people just will not believe it. Does anyone really think when he said 57 states that was a slip of the tongue? "my Muslim faith" that wasn't a slip either but he made it look like it. I've never slipped and said "my Muslim faith".. have you? Come on people.. This is a narcissists game... say what is true then watch the people.. who are stupid... reac and defend him by saying it was a slip. It gives him great pleasure to fool the fools because it makes his narcissistic ego feel oh so superior. Very devious, scary man and I agree that he is not psychologically intact.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
at long last, welcome to the club, Roger. I've said for a long time that this man cannot be judged by the same calculus as other presidents because he is like none of them. And when you have exhausted all the possible reasons behind some of his actions, you have to consider the heretofore impossible.

This administration is either incompetent on a nuclear-level scale or it is simply malevolent. The latter requires you to believe that the outcomes we have seen - stagnant employment five years later, the growth in food stamps, the expansion of the surveillance state, and foreign policy moves like this one are features of the system, not bugs. This has not stemmed from inexperience or bad advice or poorly thought policy, no, these results are purposeful. They were the intent. What in the world did folks think Obama meant when he pledged to fundamentally transform the nation?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
OBAMA IS NOW PAYING THE PRICE

of getting into bed with the Brotherhood and forging ties with their US front groups; caught in the web of his own making Obama can't extricate himself and needs to resort to trickery and guile to appease them: leaking the lie that he opposes El-Sisi and secretly cut off military aid to his junta. Whether Obama likes it or not the Egyptian military is indispensable to the US for fighting Islamic terror and for its strategic interests in the region. Caught between the rock and hard place poor, lost, befuddled Obama believes that Brotherhood support is indispensable for a peace deal with the Taliban (Qaradawi), and for a settlement to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict (bringing Hamas to the table). He's trapped and desperately trying to navigate a middle course between his need for both El-Sisi and the Brotherhood. The disaster of Obama's first term is becoming the catastrophe of his second term as his administration tumbles into utter epic confusion.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Since many of the comments here have been trying to make the M connection: Has anyone seen him physically present with his dog? This is a gross generalization, yes, but they detest dogs...just sayin'.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I dont beleive obama is a muslim. I beleive he is a radical anti colonial leftist. All of the US left covers for radical islam, not just obama.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
A lot of theories. The Israeli journalist Ron ben-Yishai, generally a moderate pragmatist, wrote a piece on the Y-Net site that claims the US under Obama is worried about its image, and that it preaches democracy relentlessly in a 'missionary' way. This is actually consistent, as ben-Yishai points out, with Bush-Rice's policy on the Hamas elections in Gaza once Sharon expelled 'settlers' and unilaterally withdrew the army (to be followed by looting, destruction of greenhouses and burning of over twenty synagogues). Bush and Rice in effect supported Hamas' legitimacy on the grounds that democratic elections (being an American favorite) are the final arbiter. The 'missionary' part is also important, as the US has religiously exported 'democracy' for decades. The Hamas policy could thus be directly connected to the Bush Doctrine in general, which is said to have been the primary motivator behind the invasion/liberation of Iraq.

No, the point is not to blame Bush, but to show that while Obama is clearly a MB partisan by policy (though this may change now), this is not an abrupt break. And to further make the point that this is a continuum (now deepened), one of Bush's instruments of encouragement towards 'liberating' Iraq was Natan Scharansky, who was convinced, based on his experience in helping bring the fall of the USSR, that the Arab Muslim peoples were just like the Poles and Czechs, yearning for 'one man, one vote.' It seems that Natan and Dubya were friends. ..no, the point is not to blame Israel, the point is to show that when people get drunk on any notion, including democracy, and mis-apply it, mischief results.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I don't think Obama is a promoter of democracy in the Middle East. What seems to be Obama's modus operendi is to do precisely the opposite of George Bush (due to Obama's hatred of Bush). hence, if Bush promised a missile defense shield in eastern Europe, Obama would nullify it (ditto with the Bush agreements made in the letter to Ariel Sharon -- obama must nullify Bush agreements.) Thus, if Bush convinced Gadaffi to give up his nuclear ambitions and Libya was de-fanged, Obama felt compelled to topple Gadaffi. These reversals -- whatever Bush did, Obama, the Messiah, righteously deplores and reverses -- can also explain Obama's crush on the Muslim Brotherhood. The MB are the ultimate non-democracy oriented tyrants in the region -- and that's, in part, why Obama embraces them.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I agree as far as Obama's motivations, JSenta. How to reconcile the two? I think there is a way - Obama does not grasp that Bush in fact promoted Arab 'democracy' - or sees Bush's interventions as attempts to de-Islamicize those countries through democracy. But you are right, the sitting President loathes Dubya Bush, and thus does not get that Dubya helped legitimize Hamas (in a way, so did Israel by abandoning Gaza - a move that many on the Right here believe helped pave the way to the 2006 Hizbollah war, as Nasrallah and Iran were emboldened).
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
As I recall -- about those proposed elections where HAMAS decided to run -- initially Bush said, "no". Bush opposed (for a brief time), he did not want to allow HAMAS to run. But Leftists derided Bush without mercy. Then Bush caved, relented (there were large numbers of analysts who swore up and down that the Palis would never, ever vote-in terrorists. Impossible to have HAMAS elected! One of those Peace Now writers even wrote a book about this).
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Very possibly, yes.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
There is a Washington Post article which nicely summed up the conundrum the Bush administration faced in 2005 ("Palestinian leader is urged to confront militant groups" by Glenn Kessler, Oct 21, 2005). From the article: "A senior administration official said the Bush administration believes that allowing armed groups [HAMAS] to participate in elections is a 'fundamental contradiction' to building a democratic state, but 'we are not going to write election laws for the Palestinians'." If Bush had barred Hamas (and Hamas had a lot of supporters), it would have delegitimized the elections. (
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Also wanted to add, that Bush -- unlike the Europeans -- did not, cannot accept or deal with HAMAS (since in the U.S. HAMAS is designated as a terrorist group). How theEuropeans get around this issue (as i'm sure you know) is by dividing terrorist groups into a political vs military wing (then the Eu can hypocritically maintain a relationship with terrorist groups, while on paper saying they're not). Bush did not do this.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Note - In the real world, all people are not alike. The Czechs and Egyptians don't, politically, have much in common at all.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
What's so strange about it? He IS a muslim brother.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 5 Next View All