Mr. Obama’s closing speech at the summit on non-Islamic terrorism began with him insisting yet again that radical Islam or Islamic Fundamentalism is not Islamist.
One of the policies of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood is that “Policymakers should reject the use of language that provides a religious legitimization of terrorism such as ‘Islamic terrorism’ and ‘Islamic extremist.’ They should replace such terminology with more specific and descriptive terms such as ‘Al-Qaeda’”
These policies have also been reiterated by an Obama advisor, Rashad Hussain.
He went into his alleged efforts on the war front which are more pretend than real.
Though he said the opposite, we are not helping our allies, we are not providing intel, we have little intel ourselves and only sporadically hit targets and, and finally, there is no strategy.
Today’s speech was an anti-war manifesto disguised as a strategy of sorts. While the non sequiturs have merit as secondary long-term goals, they do nothing about the raging terrorism spreading throughout the globe. They would be a good idea if they were goals for the future, but that is not the case.
Mr. Obama refuses to admit that radical Islamists fervently believe in a medieval form of Islam and are acting on that belief in their global jihad – their Holy War. As a result, there will be no correspondingly appropriate strategy to deal with it.
He is so devoted to his Twitter war that he appointed a Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer, possibly member, Rashad Hussain, to head up this counterterrorism agency. “Hussain, a devout Muslim, has a history of participating in events connected with the Muslim Brotherhood,” reported Cal Thomas in an article published by Townhall.
Front Page Magazine reports that it was Hussain who in August 2008 published a paper (for the Brookings Institution) titled “Reformulating the Battle of ideas: Understanding the Role of Islam in Counterterrorism Policy.” A number of the paper’s recommendations were consistent with the agendas and worldviews of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood. For example:
- “Policymakers should reject the use of language that provides a religious legitimization of terrorism such as ‘Islamic terrorism’ and ‘Islamic extremist.’ They should replace such terminology with more specific and descriptive terms such as ‘Al-Qaeda’”
- “The United States should welcome and encourage the further development of mainstream Muslim organizations and moderate institutions.” (Specifically, Hussain’s paper references the work of the Fiqh Council of North America, which is tied to the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.)
- “The primary cause of broad-based anger and anti-Americanism is not a clash of civilizations but the perceived effect of U.S. foreign policy in the Muslim world.”
Barack Obama’s statements are also in line with the Muslim Brotherhood. He is also filling up positions in the seat of power with Muslim Brotherhood friendly advisors and operatives.
People are shocked by Barack Obama’s seemingly stubborn adherence to not calling the enemy by name but it is easily explained if one recognizes his ideology is Muslim Brotherhood-friendly.
The New York Times reported that “skeptics of the new campaign voiced concerns that the program is an attempt by the White House to end a long-simmering turf war with the counterterrorism center’s director, Alberto Fernandez, and exercise more control over the kinds of messages that are produced and coordinated with domestic and international partners.”
Turf war or war by the director to not have the message pointed in the wrong direction?
In his speech today, Barack Obama again said the Islamists and terrorists have legitimate grievances. He said they need jobs and education. We are going to put money into this effort in yet another redistribution scheme.
He wants more discussions because talk is what he is best at.
He forgot to mention Christians as victims yet again.
Watch the clips:
Additional Source: Breitbart