Thursday, February 3, 2011

Questions About Obama and The Muslim Brotherhood Lead To More Questions

Indeed, the more answers I get about this organization, the more questions I have. For instance, why did Obama invite the PM of the Muslim Brotherhood to his speech in Cairo on June, 9, 2009? Especially considering the contentious relationship between the Brotherhood, and Egypt's president? Is there any way a comparable scenario would be allowed to play out in the United States? That the nemesis of the president would be invited to attend the speech of a visiting dignitary? I think not.

Yet, that is exactly what Obama did:
[snip] The Muslim Brotherhood has been a thorn in President Mubarak's side for many decades. Many of its members, at one time or another have been jailed. However, the group has 86 members in the Egyptian parliament, and the head of the Parliamentarian bloc of the Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammad Al Katatini, stated on Tuesday that he had received a private invitation from the American President to come to Al-Azhar University, where Obama will deliver his speech. This is an audacious move on the part of Obama, which managed to irritate the Egyptian leadership who say that the Brotherhood is 'illegal'. Apparently, Americans officials in Cairo met with Al Katatini according to a report from Al Jazeera. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

And then there was that secret meeting between former Ambassador to Egypt, Frank Weisner, and a senior leader in the Muslim Brotherhood, Issam El-Erian, on January 31, 2011, in Cairo.

What the hell is going on here?

In all honesty, I am not really surprised by these actions of Obama or his Administration. Though I was surprised to learn that Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota went on a trip to Mecca sponsored by a group, MAS (Muslim American Society), with these ties to the Muslim Brotherhood:
[snip] The MAS was founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood, an international Islamist movement created in Egypt in 1928. Radical members of the Brotherhood founded the terror group Hamas and were among the first members of Al Qaeda.

The Muslim American Society's former secretary general has acknowledged that the group was founded by the Brotherhood, and in 2004 he estimated that about half of MAS members were in the Muslim Brotherhood. [snip]

[snip] "It is the de facto arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S.," said Steven Emerson, director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism. "The agenda of the MAS is to ... impose Islamic law in the U.S., to undermine U.S. counterterrorism policy."
[snip](Click here to read the rest.)

Wow. Now THAT is disturbing. Yet we are often bludgeoned into silence int his country should we dare raise any questions about these kinds of Muslim organizations. It seems we should have been asking a lot more questions,of Obama, and his associates, especially if you look at the choices Obama has made with some of his appointments. As it turns out, a number of them, including one of the people he chose to participate in his inauguration ceremonies:
[snip] Obama’s first attempt at outreach to Muslims came when he chose the head of a Muslim Brotherhood-linked group that had been named an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case to give a prayer during his inauguration ceremonies. Ingrid Mattson, who was then president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), offered this prayer at the National Cathedral on Obama’s Inauguration Day – despite the fact that the previous summer, federal prosecutors rejected a request from ISNA to remove its unindicted co-conspirator status.

There is no record of Obama ever asking Mattson to explain ISNA’s links to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. On the contrary: he sent his Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett to be the keynote speaker at ISNA’s national convention in 2009.

But wait - there's more:
Even worse, in April 2009, Obama appointed Arif Alikhan, the deputy mayor of Los Angeles, as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development at the Department of Homeland Security. Just two weeks before he received this appointment, Alikhan (who once called the jihad terror group Hizballah a “liberation movement”) participated in a fundraiser for the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). Like ISNA, MPAC has links to the Muslim Brotherhood. In a book entitled In Fraternity: A Message to Muslims in America, coauthor Hassan Hathout, a former MPAC president, is identified as “a close disciple of the late Hassan al-Banna of Egypt.” The MPAC-linked magazine The Minaret spoke of Hassan Hathout’s closeness to al-Banna in a 1997 article: “My father would tell me that Hassan Hathout was a companion of Hassan al-Banna….Hassan Hathout would speak of al-Banna with such love and adoration; he would speak of a relationship not guided by politics or law but by a basic sense of human decency.”

Al-Banna, of course, was the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.[snip](Click here to read the rest.)

So, yes, that Obama invited the PM to his speech in Cairo, and had the former Ambassador meet with the Brotherhood in private really should not be a surprise. Evidently, Obama's connections with the Brotherhood are not new.

And this news raises this important question for me: how, and why,is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton able to justify this support for the Muslim Brotherhood to have a role in Egypt's government given her lifelong work and dedication to women and children? I do not understand it.

Anyone who has read me regularly knows that my support for Hillary Clinton was complete and unwavering. I had never felt so strongly about a presidential candidate in my life as I did about her run for president. And not just because she was a woman, but because she was one of the most qualified, experienced, intelligent people with a real grasp of what is going on in the lives of regular Americans as any candidate I have ever seen. Her ability to hold so many different concepts at once, able to see down the road how implementation of policies would be most effective, and she was able to communicate her knowledge with compassion, wisdom, and humor. In short, she was the complete package.

Clinton's work on behalf of women and children began after law school when she went to work for the Children's Defense Fund in 1970, and her commitment only grew after that. Her work as First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of the United States, US Senator from New York, and now Secretary of State, have all included her commitment to women and children. She routinely speaks out about the positive effect on a country when its women and children are educated, and has an office dedicated to Women's Issuesin the State Department.

Curiously, there is also an office for outreach to Muslim Communities, initiated in 2009. This special representative, Farah, Pandith, reports directly to the Secretary. Interesting, that. Why is our State Department reaching out to a particular religious group, I have to ask? Again, it should not be a surprise that this office came into being with Obama's presidency.

All of the above leads me back to this: how can Secretary Clinton continue to support President Obama in his push for the Muslim Brotherhood to be involved in governing Egypt? The Muslim Brotherhood wants to implement Sharia Law, for heaven's sake. How in the world can Secretary Clinton stand by this? How can she possibly condone the impact this will have on women in Egypt given her lifelong work for women to have full human rights? How? I simply do not understand this. It seems to fly in the face of everything for which she has stood, and about which she spoke, in this groundbreaking speech back in 1995:

If Sharia Law is implemented in Egypt, as it surely will be if the Muslim Brotherhood is involved, it will set back women's progress there decades. How Secretary Clinton can remain silent on this is beyond me. There is still time, though, and I hope she will come out and say the right thing, or give up her office rather than be complacent in Obama's push for the Brotherhood's involvement there. I hope she will truly stand on the side of women, and not this president who clearly does not have women's best interests at heart (which I have been saying from the get-go. Do you think "Ms. Magazine" and N.O.W. have gotten it, um, now?).

Will Secretary Clinton stand with women around the world, or will she stand with Obama? One can only hope she will choose the former. The latter would just be unthinkable...

No comments: