Showing posts with label CAIR. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CAIR. Show all posts

Does the U.S. Have a Policy on the Muslim Brotherhood?

It looks like the federal government - the United States - has no policy on the Muslim Brotherhood.  On the one hand I think this is pure incompetence on the part of the Obama administration.  On the other hand I question whether the administration could actually be that incompetent which would mean that this policy is being done purposely.  One never knows with this administration.  Incompetence or purposely?  Take your pick. Neither choice is good.  

 From The Washington Times:
The federal government has no strategy to counter the Muslim Brotherhood at home or abroad, according to the chairwoman of the House panel that oversees counterintelligence and terrorism.
“The federal government does not have a comprehensive or consistent strategy for dealing with the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliated groups in America,” Rep. Sue Wilkins Myrick said during a hearing Wednesday. “Nor does it have a strategy for dealing with the Brotherhood in Egypt or the greater Middle East.”
The North Carolina Republican is chairwoman of the House Intelligence subcommittee on terrorism, human intelligence, analysis and counterintelligence. Mrs. Myrick said at the hearing that she planned on scheduling closed classified hearings on the Muslim Brotherhood this session with government officials.
Established in 1928 in Cairo, the Muslim Brotherhood is widely considered the first organization to push for political Islam or Islamism, a movement that seeks to replace civil law with Islamic or Shariah law.
Islamists were repressed for decades by the governments in countries such as Egypt and Tunisia. But with the wave of uprisings that have toppled those governments, political parties and social movements inspired by the Muslim Brotherhood may be poised to try to assume political power in those countries for the first time.
At the hearing, during which nongovernment experts gave testimony, opinions on this point differed.
Robert Satloff, executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said “deep concern” about the role the Muslim Brotherhoodwill play in Egypt is “warranted.”
“The Brotherhood is not, as some suggest, simply an Egyptian version of the March of Dimes - that is, a social welfare organization whose goals are fundamentally humanitarian,” he said. “On the contrary, theBrotherhood is a profoundly political organization that seeks to reorder Egyptian and broader Muslim society in an Islamist fashion.”
Nathan Brown, a professor at George Washington University and expert on the Muslim Brotherhood, disagreed.
He said the Brotherhood was not able to get more than 3 million votes inEgypt’s parliamentary election of 2005, despite winning 20 percent of the seats. He also noted that the supreme guide of the Brotherhood has said the group will contest only 30 percent of the seats in the parliament for now.
Mrs. Myrick was particularly concerned about the role the Muslim Brotherhood plays in the United States.
Documents that emerged from the FBI investigation and U.S. prosecution of a charity known as the Holy Land Foundation suggest that some U.S.-based Muslim groups sought to advance the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States.
“There are no buildings on K Street with ‘Muslim Brotherhood‘ in the lobby directory. Instead, the group spreads its influence through a large number of affiliated organizations throughout the country,” Mrs. Myricksaid.
“This allows the Muslim Brotherhood to muddy the water when it comes to foreign funding and influence and to hide behind groups that have plausible deniability of their involvement with the Brotherhood when necessary,” she added.
Lorenzo Vidino, a visiting fellow at the Rand Corp. who wrote “The New Muslim Brotherhood in the West,” said the group has affiliates in more than 80 countries.
But Mr. Vidino warned that there is no monolithic international Muslim Brotherhood that controls each affiliate. He said that Brotherhood affiliates in the West have not sought to turn their host countries into Islamic republics, for now.
Instead, the goal of Western groups is “preserving Islamic identity among Western Muslims,” he said.
Here is Eric Bolling interviewing both Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch and Dr. Zuhdi Jasser from the American Islamic Forum on Democracy: 



We need some type of policy on how to handle the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR in the United States. I am not sure whether all, mostly, or just a small minority are Muslim extremists in those groups but we need to stop the extremists from subverting the Constitution for their own agenda along with stopping them from committing any threats or acts of terrorism against the United States.  In my opinion these groups need to be audited by the government to see where their funds are going, whether they are funding terrorist groups or not.  In addition, since the United States played at least some part in forcing Mubarak to resign then our government should have at least some influence in making sure that Egypt's government isn't going to be run by Islamic extremists.  Nathan Brown isn't concerned about the Muslim Brotherhood in this election because in the previous election they only received about 3 million votes and won 20 percent of the seats but the circumstances are different in the upcoming election.  In the last election the political system was not in turmoil just after the country's leader had been ousted from office like it is today. The Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood Mohammed Badie thinks differently from Mr. Brown.  

A Judge gets SMART and Rules in Favor of Freedom of Speech



In the spring of 2010 the city of Detroit refused to run Pamela Geller's religious liberty bus ads, which offer help to people wishing to leave Islam safely.

Pamela Geller stated, "Despite the desperate need for resources for Muslims under threat for leaving Islam, the city of Detroit refused to run our freedom campaign on the Dearborn and Detroit buses." 

In May of 2010 her group, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, sued the city of Detroit for refusing to post their religious liberty ads.

A U.S. District Court judge has ruled that Detroit's SMART bus system must run Pamela's religious liberty ads which are aimed at helping those living in fear, wishing to leave Islam.

The city of Detroit even violated their own ad guidelines on freedom of speech.  The fear which Islamic supremacy poses to others of different faiths has permeated throughout both Detroit and Dearborn. Here is SMART's first guideline:

"As a governmental agency that receives state and federal funds, SMART is mandated to comply with federal and state laws.  First Amendment free speech rights require that SMART not censor free speech and because of that, SMART is required to provide equal access to advertising on our vehicles." 

CAIR claimed that Pamela's ads were "offensive." An individual or group's claim that something is "offensive' does not give them the right to violate the Constitution by violating person' free speech rights.

'According to the Washington Times, a teacher in Dearborn noted that there was "a climate of fear in the Detroit area's community." The educator explained: "The fear is palpable. I know there are things I am ‘not allowed' to say. A discussion of religion with a Muslim person is often prefaced by the statement, ‘Don't say anything about the Prophet [Muhammad].' In free society, open and honest conversation is not usually begun by a prohibition. Threats and intimidation are just part of life here." ' 

Then SMART accused Pamela's ads of being political.  WOW! Is Islam a political entity?  Are they effectively admitting that Islam is political?  Instead of or in addition to Islam being religiously based?

In their motion, AFDI argued "The fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker's opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection."

Pamela stated:

"I flew to Detroit to testify in the suit back in July 2010.  David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise, who is with the Thomas More Law Center, represented me. I was armed with hundreds of pictures of honor killing victims; the testimony of ex-Muslim teenager Rifqa Bary, whose life was threatened; screenshots of Facebook fatwas on apostates, and the actual death fatwa issued at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the most important institution of Islamic law in the Sunni world and the authority that approved the revealing English-language guide to the Sharia (Islamic law) known as Reliance of the Traveller." 


"This was a huge win, not just for us, but for the First Amendment, and a defeat for all those who claim that I am a hater because I am willing to talk about what is wrong in Islam -- including, as in this case, honor killings and fatwas for apostasy. Judge Hood protected free speech and did not take any swipes at my message, which she could have (such as saying, "While we might despise AFDI's message, we must protect it..."). She did not do that. Good for her." 


"I was thrilled, not just for the protection of free speech, but for those living in danger who will be helped by our freedom buses." 


"Those ignored and abandoned people were the ones who really won this victory." 

This is indeed a huge win for the First Amendment.  The Constitution won out, as it should, over Islam's environment of fear in Detroit and Dearborn.
 
Best viewed on Chrome, Firefox, Opera & Safari browsers with resolutions 1360 x 768.

Copyright © . Regina Antonio™. Powered by Blogger™. All Right Reserved.