Anti-Muslim

Commenting on the right-wing smear campaign targeting Huma Abedin, Adam Serwer noted that the people suggesting Abedin is a secret agent for the Muslim Brotherhood would “have to ignore her marriage to the ardently pro-Israel disgraced New York Congressman Anthony Weiner. (Of course: it's the perfect cover.)” But some anti-Muslim activists are actually using the “perfect cover” line to bolster their own arguments: David Horowitz told American Family Association president Tim Wildmon yesterday that Weiner has either “secretly converted to Islam or Huma Abedin has been given a special dispensation to marry a Jew so she can infiltrate our government.” He lamented Republican criticism of attacks on Abedin at a time when Democrats have already been “thoroughly infiltrated and defending the jihadists”:

Horowitz: The inquiry; the fact that Michele Bachmann has been attacked as she has by Republicans, and the two key ones are McCain and John Boehner, is terrible. It’s bad enough that the Democratic Party is thoroughly infiltrated and defending the jihadists, the Islamists. But that the Republican Party should be doing this as well, it’s disastrous.

…

Wildmon: Michele Bachmann, the congresswoman from Minnesota is being demonized in the national media and what is happened here is that—and I’ve read about this a year ago or so—Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, her right hand person, who is married to disgraced Anthony Weiner—

Horowitz: Anthony Weiner is a Jew. So according to Muslim law, either Anthony Weiner has secretly converted to Islam or Huma Abedin has been given a special dispensation to marry a Jew so she can infiltrate our government.

Horowitz also claimed that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is to blame for the rise of the “dangerous” left because it makes people want to seek change in the world they live in:

Horowitz: George Soros, who is an evil man, who has evil designs on this country, once said, he said he aspired to be the conscience of mankind. He knows that he’s a corrupt businessman who has caused a lot of pain and so he redeems himself by being the champion of the progressive future. That’s what it does for them. If you look at history you will see that all these ‘isms’—communism, socialism, Nazism—they all emerge after Darwin, that is after the decline of organized religion. They replace the religious vision of a redemption in the next life with a communist vision with a redemption in this life, and that is why they are so bloody dangerous.

Mitt Romney hasn’t yet publicly stated his view on the witch hunt against Muslim-Americans  in the Obama administration supported by Michele Bachmann. But today his foreign policy adviser, former Bush administration official John Bolton, defended Bachmann and her allies in an appearance on anti-Muslim, anti-Obama conspiracy theorist Frank Gaffney’s radio show. Bolton told Gaffney, a birther who helped stoke the witch hunt, that he was “mystified” by the criticism of Bachmann and that she was “simply raising the question.” Bachmann, for her part, is beyond raising questions: last week she declared that “there has been deep penetration in the halls of our United States government by the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Gaffney: John Bolton, one of the hot house issues in Washington at the moment that speaks to this point you just made about American decline and aiding and abetting our enemies under the Obama administration involves the Muslim Brotherhood. It’s not just that we’ve helped bring them to power in Egypt and are otherwise emboldening them, you mentioned that they are a likely successor to Bashar Assad in Syria. But here at home as well, five congresspeople including Michele Bachmann have been pressing for investigations into the extent to which some of these policies that we’ve been adopting, both abroad and here, might have something to do with influence operations aimed at and actually successfully inside the wire in our government. What do you make of this controversy and particularly the criticisms, the vicious criticisms, that have been mounted against these folks for their warnings from within their own ranks?

Bolton: I’ve been subject to how many security clearance procedures and I must say as irritating as some people may find them I think they are absolutely essential to making sure that people who work in sensitive positions in the national security field in our government are entirely loyal to the United States. I just think that’s an absolute, fundamental prerequisite. Now people find them intrusive, they find them inconvenient, my response is, that’s just too bad. What I think these members of Congress have done is simply raise the question, to a variety of inspectors general in key agencies, are your departments following their own security clearance guidelines, are they adhering to the standards that presumably everybody who seeks a security clearance should have to go through, are they making special exemptions? What is wrong with raising the question? Why is even asking whether we are living up to our standards a legitimate area of congressional oversight, why has that generated this criticism? I’m just mystified by it.

Gaffney: I think it has a lot to do with both shooting the messenger and trying to deflect attention from what is a huge, yawning and very serious vulnerability of this president, especially now as this election gets down to the clinches.

This leaves Bolton opposed to Republicans including John McCain, Marco Rubio, Scott Brown, John Boehner, Mike Rogers, Jim Sensenbrenner, and even Bachmann’s former campaign manager, all of whom have spoken out against Bachmann’s McCarthyism.

Earlier in the program, Bolton suggested that Obama’s speeches that have been “patriotic and laudatory of our troops” are only a campaign tactic. The president, he says, is “comfortable with the decline of American influence in the world.”

Bolton: He’s realized he is in the middle of a very closely fought election campaign and suddenly the rhetoric is patriotic and laudatory of our troops. But the fact is his policies have cost the United States around the world, he has withdrawn combat forces from Iraq, he plans to do it from Afghanistan, the rest of the world sees an American retreat, the budget sequestration mechanism on top of the nearly a trillion dollars of cuts and defense spending that Obama himself imposed, I think even his own defense secretary said would cripple our military. We are in very grave shape and yet the president, as he has done consistently on economic or foreign policy, talks about doing the exact opposite of what his policies are and of course the media give him a free pass on it. Nobody should be under any illusions, this is a president comfortable with the decline of American influence in the world and he is watching it happen.

Gaffney: Well, I would argue he is accelerating it at every turn.

It was only a matter of time before Michele Bachmann’s allies tried to play the victim following the backlash against her latest conspiratorial witch hunt, this time focusing on Muslim-Americans serving in the Obama administration. Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, who helped launch the attacks on Sec. Hillary Clinton’s aide Huma Abedin and whose report Bachmann and four other Republican members cite in their letters to the inspectors general, spoke today with David Bossie of the right-wing group Citizens United to defend the witch hunt.

Bossie said that Bachmann’s main problem was naming Abedin in the State Department letter, which was rebuffed by the inspector general, when she should have tried to “name her without naming her.” He claimed that people are attacking Bachmann because she tries “to defend our freedoms” and represents a “danger” to their nefarious plans. Gaffney, who has made a career disparaging people like Abedin and even conservatives such as Grover Norquist, lamented that there is “an effort to demonize and take down” Bachmann.

Bossie: These five members of Congress led by Michele Bachmann, because they just hate her so, because they just have this natural desire to attack her at every turn because she’s decided to pick up a weapon and stand a post, she decided that she was going to defend our freedoms at every turn for many years. So certainly if I was in her camp, would I have said ‘hey let’s ask these questions, let’s do all this without putting a staffer’s name in it,’ because as a former staffer, as a guy who was the chief investigator for Congress during the ’90s and somebody who investigated the Clinton’s relentlessly and whose name was in letters like this all the time from the left, Republicans stood tall for me at every turn because members didn’t like members picking on staffers, at least how it’s presumed. So you could see how that could be perceived. I would have probably said, ‘let’s name her without naming her,’ that’s one way to solve what potentially happened.

But they want to attack Michele Bachmann for what is really an oversight in my opinion by naming her, but they want to attack her because she’s been a leader against the Muslim Brotherhood, against radical Islam, for the last four years that she has been in the House of Representatives and they see her as a danger, as a leader who is dangerous in their pursuits.

Gaffney: That’s the point. It’s really an effort to demonize and take down, if they can, a formidable political adversary in Michele Bachmann.

If Bachmann really was the courageous leader that Bossie and Gaffney described, it’s hard to see why she literally ran away from a CNN reporter who was asking her questions about the letters, and if people are only criticizing Bachmann because they detest her attempts to “defend our freedoms,” then leading Republicans like John McCain, Marco Rubio, John Boehner and Mike Rogers must be included on that list.

Bossie also took to Politico to defend the congresswoman and her Republican allies, saying they “should be applauded for their letter and be regarded as patriots”:

The inspectors general should absolutely investigate whether individuals with associations with the Muslim Brotherhood are contributing to the adoption of policies that favor an organization that poses a threat to national security. The Muslim Brotherhood is the driving force behind the effort to impose a totalitarian ideology it calls “shariah.” During the Obama presidency, the Brotherhood has made huge strides towards achieving its goal in the Middle East.

Unfortunately, as is made clear in their own documents – specifically a strategic plan introduced into evidence in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation trial, the largest terrorism financing prosecution in our nation’s history – the Muslim Brotherhood also has as its goal “destroying Western civilization from within.” This goal is being pursued via what the Brothers call a stealthy “civilization jihad” that involves, among other techniques, gaining access to and influencing government agencies.

It is not McCarthyism to state these irrefutable facts. Neither are requests by members of Congress seeking, through the appropriate formal channels, to establish whether the Muslim Brotherhood has gained a foothold and legitimacy – especially in light of the adoption of Brotherhood-friendly policies by the Obama Administration. These are absolutely legitimate and necessary questions because of the stakes for our national security.

Far from being criticized or suppressed by America’s elites and politically correct police, Reps. Bachmann, Gohmert, Franks, Westmoreland and Rooney should be applauded for their letter and be regarded as patriots.

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann’s witch hunt against Muslim-Americans working in government, specifically Hillary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin, has been denounced by not only Democrats like Keith Ellison but also top Republicans such as John McCain, John Boehner, Marco Rubio, Scott Brown and even her former campaign manager. But at least Bachmann still has support from Tea Party Nation head Judson Phillips, who said in an email to members today that “John McCain needs to sit down and shut up.” Phillips also claimed while “Islam is our enemy” the Obama administration has listed “potential terrorists as Tea Party supporters.”

Michele Bachmann is a lightning rod for controversy. But there is an interesting point to all of it. Controversy always swirls around her when she is standing up for the truth. What is she doing now that is causing controversy and why is she right?

Michele Bachmann called for an investigation into the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamists who are influencing American policy.

Unfortunately some Republicans, the drive by media and Islamist sympathizers have changed the story to where it is not about the Muslim Brotherhood, a known terrorist organization, but to a story about Huma Abedin.

…

The Obama Regime releases report after report that names potential terrorists as Tea Party supporters, those who oppose the Obama Regime and those who advocate closing the borders and stopping illegal immigration.

Yet they will not even use the word Islam when they describe terrorism.

The fact is Islam is our enemy. Islam is a theocracy. It is not consistent with a Western Democracy. Islam demands its adherents overthrow a non-Islamic government and replace it with an Islamic government.

This has been the story of Islam wherever it has gained power for the last fifteen hundred years.

During the Cold War, Communists and Soviet sympathizers were not allowed into sensitive positions in government, except of course during Democrat administrations. When we have Islamist groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood that want to replace our Democracy with a theocracy and this is their avowed goal, what the hell are we doing letting them anywhere near the door?

John McCain needs to sit down and shut up. Perhaps he should buy a clue about a subject before he starts talking about it.

The Islamist threat to America and to freedom is real. The question is are we going to deal with it before we are attacked again?

Jerry Boykin spent his July 4 holiday by chatting with Frank Gaffney for an hour about the supposed rise of Islamic extremists within the U.S. government and accused Sec. Hillary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin of participating in a Muslim Brotherhood plot “to penetrate our government.” He maintained that not only is the Obama administration showing a “willful blindness” to the penetration but also insisted that “there is support for the infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood into our government”:

Boykin: I would not begin to try and explain the actions of the administration because it is beyond anything that I can possibly claim. Secondly, Huma [Abedin] is not the only person who has penetrated our government and if you go back to the explanatory memorandum that is in our book, Sharia: The Threat, which was discovered in Annandale, Virginia in the archives of the Muslim Brotherhood, one of their strategies was to penetrate our government and they have done so. If my mother or father was a known member of the Muslim Brotherhood it is highly unlikely that I would ever be able to get a security clearance so you have to ask yourself, why is this individual able to do that when no one else can possibly do that. So there is a willful blindness to what is happening. I believe in some aspects of this situation there is support for the infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood into our government, that sounds extremist but it is just a fact, it’s a reality.

But apparently it is not only the Obama White House which has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood as later, Boykin, who like Gaffney believes that conservative activist Grover Norquist is a “Muslim Brotherhood facilitator,” claims that the Bush administration also faced a Muslim Brotherhood infiltration. He expressed hope that Rep. Frank Wolf, who has denounced Norquist’s “unsavory” connections, will investigate Norquist’s purported Muslim Brotherhood ties:

Gaffney: There actually was a similar effort made to penetrate the conservative movement and Republican Party circles, including the administration, for that matter the 2000 campaign of George W. Bush. What do we know about how this came about and its implications?

Boykin: Yes, you’re right Frank. This penetration of our government at the highest levels did not begin with the Obama administration, if you go back to the 2000 campaign the Islamic vote went predominately to George W. Bush, now someone had to orchestrate that. Recently, within the last three months, Rep. Frank Wolf has called into question Grover Norquist, for not only his association with [Jack] Abramoff but also for his association with questionable groups within the Muslim community, particularly those that are identified as being with the Muslim Brotherhood. I think it’s easily justified to say that he was a very large part of bringing the Islamic vote to George W. Bush in 2000. Now that did not happen in 2004, as a result of the response to 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, but I think that just as Rep. Wolf said, I think we have to look very hard at Grover Norquist and ask what his role in all of this has been.

Gaffney: I certainly agree. It’s deeply troubling that Grover Norquist and one of his folks with the Muslim Brotherhood associations, Suhail Kahn, have been active even to this day in conservative circles, serving at the moment at the board of the American Conservative Union.

Cliff Kincaid of the conservative organizations Accuracy In Media and America’s Survival is spearheading a conference this Summer outlining the supposed connections between radical Islamists, communists, and President Obama. The National Press Club summit plans to fulfill “the late Andrew Breitbart’s promise to finally ‘vet’ the president” by exposing the “diabolical dangers of Marxism and radical Islam” and “the shocking truth about Obama and his agenda to emerge.” Speakers include Ryan Mauro of the Clarion Fund, the anti-Muslim group which gained notoriety when the NYPD used one of their films in trainings, along with Joel Gilbert, who is making a film claiming that Frank Marshall Davis is Obama’s real father. Fittingly, the website for the event is LeninAndSharia.com:

Topics include: Obama's Saudi connection, Muslim communism, the Marxist-Islamist nexus, communist exploitation of blacks, Soros funding of Marxist groups, the dangers of foreign propaganda channels like Al-Jazeera and Russia Today, and the War on Cops

• Cliff Kincaid, President, America’s Survival, Inc. Director, AIM Center for Investigative Journalism, on “Lenin and Sharia: the Diabolical Threat.”

• Paul Kengor, author of the new book, The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, the Untold Story of Barack Obama's Mentor.

• Joel Gilbert, director, “Dreams from My Real Father,” on Frank Marshall Davis as Obama’s real father

• Konstantin Preobrazhensky, former Soviet KGB officer, on “Communists and Muslims.”

• Ryan Mauro, National Security Analyst, RadicalIslam.org / Clarion Fund, on “The War on the New York City Police Department.”

• Jeremy Segal, blogger who captured Obama ally Rep. Danny K. Davis on film discussing his acceptance of an award from the Communist Party USA.

• Larry Grathwohl, former FBI informant in the Weather Underground, on “Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and the ‘Race Course Against White Supremacy.’”

• Trevor Loudon, author, Barack Obama and the Enemies Within, on Alice Palmer, the neglected communist agent in Obama’s life

Back in 2010, Kyle noted that the American Center for Law and Justice was organizing a campaign to stop the construction of the Park 51 Islamic Community Center near Ground Zero while simultaneously championing the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which they praised for making sure that never again will “our nation's houses of faith have their freedom to worship where and how they choose violated by ignorant or hostile zoning officials.” Now it appears that Pamela Geller, who worked alongside ACLJ executive director Jordan Sekulow against the establishment of Park 51, wants to repeal the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act altogether because it might benefit Muslim worshipers.

While speaking with conservative radio host Janet Mefferd yesterday, Geller called for the repeal of RLUIPA because “it’s become a weapon in which to club small towns and cities” where Muslims are seeking to establish mosques, lamenting, “the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.” She said that Muslims are “dishonest” with local governments by “circumventing the rules” on capacity requirements because they pray on their knees. Geller said that RLUIPA must be repealed for the sake of the “freedom from religion,” a phrase normally anathema to Religious Right audiences.

Mefferd: You had talked about the necessity of repealing the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, I guess this is what Holder is using to pressure this Virginia board of supervisors to approve this mega-mosque, what is this Act and why is it necessary?

Geller: It’s not necessary, frankly. I urge the repeal of this Act. I’m not sure who it was, I could have it wrong, I don’t know if it was Orrin Hatch, this is not a finger pointing kind of a thing, it’s more ‘the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.’ It was unnecessary, it was an idea that there should be no religious persecution of houses of worship and so on and so forth, and that was all well and good, but it’s become a weapon in which to club small towns and cities.

Look, no one is saying that you can’t build a mosque, even with the Ground Zero Mosque; there are hundreds of mosques in New York City, we know there are thousands of mosques nationwide, but these giant structures, they completely change the complexion of a town. It could be a small town, residential. I’m telling you I have seen it time and time again, irrecognizable three to five years later. The call to prayer, the parking, hundreds of people. Again, there is an element of dishonesty here because as you know in Islam they got on their knees so you don’t count a chair with that. But it’s important because it’s a way of circumventing the rules, you can’t say ‘it seats 500 or it seats whatever.’ It’s not just freedom of religion here in America, it’s also freedom from religion here in America.