Yearly Archives: 2011


Two Wrongs Makes a Left: DOJ Handles Muslim Teacher’s Suit with Political Correctness, Not Justice

Posted  at by Dr. Marc Weisman Nov 13th 2011 at 12:02 pm in IslamJustice/LegalPoliticsComments (55)

You will recall that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Department filed a lawsuit in support of a Muslim public school teacher, Sefoorah Khan. After just 9 months’ employment in a Chicago area school, Ms. Khan chose to take a three week hiatus from her position to attend “The Pilgrimage” or Hajj — a trip to Mecca, Saudi Arabia. She was encouraged, no doubt, by our ever-appeasing President when she demanded the school capitulate to her whim to fulfill this tenet of her religion — during her first year of employment, no less.

The U.S. Department of Justice has announced it settled Safoorah Khan’s lawsuit compelling the district to pay $75,000 in back pay, compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees. Even more insulting than this, the district has agreed to develop a policy “accommodating religions [i.e., Islam]” consistent with the Civil Rights Acts to prevent a similar infringement in the future. To be clear, this unusual action on the part of the Justice Department is perfectly congruent with this President’s record of relentlessly protecting political Islam.

No reasonable American denies the right of this woman to follow the doctrines of her religion. She also had the “right” and, dare I say, the common sense dignity, to resign her position if she was bent on pursuing the Hajj at that time in her life. But this isn’t about common sense any more than it is about religion. It is all about non-violent Jihad or political Islam. Chalk up one more victory for the bad guys.  This is no less than a successful exploitation of our legal system as Islamists cloak political Islam under the guise of religion abetted by our President’s misguided desire to placate and mainstream Islamism-lite.

Two wrongs make a left. The first wrong is the Obama administration’s joining Sefoorah Khan’s suit (rather than criticizing it) as a liberal statement of “American tolerance.” The second wrong is that our legal system hasn’t yet adopted the nearly world-wide policy of “loser pays”. Loser pays is the model whereby plaintiffs’ frivolous law suits are dissuaded by the fact that if unjustifiable suits fail they will be compelled to pay the defendant’s legal fees. In that model, the school system could have fought this unjust suit rather than submit to it (it is apropos that the root definition of Islam is “submission”) under the financial weight of defending itself against the U.S. Department of Justice’s hundreds of lawyers.


2011-11-16T09:30:08+00:00 November 16th, 2011|

True Colors: Shariah Law In Michigan?

Posted at by Dr. Marc Weisman Aug 22nd 2011 at 11:26 am in IslamIslamic extremismJustice/Legal,Media CriticismNewsPoliticsshariaComments (75)

Every once in a while an issue arises that can leave no doubt as to one’s true colors. Clear examples of this are the congressional bills that unambiguously prevent judges in American courts from citing or using Sharia in their rulings. If you support them, you oppose Islamic law in America; if you oppose them, you don’t. The purity of this issue doesn’t allow for prevarication. Michigan Representative Dave Agema, R-Grandville, has introduced the newest of these bills. While it doesn’t openly reference Islamic law (Sharia), it clearly intends to prevent judges from including Sharia in their rulings. The bill states that “no foreign law shall supersede federal laws or constitution or state laws or constitution.”  As one would predict, the Islamist and apologist “usual suspects”; CAIR, the ACLU, Muslim activists and apologists who claim to be “loyal Americans”, are oozing from the woodwork to deplore the “bigotry and Islamophobia” these laws represent.


Their reactions are both interesting and revealing. To make my point, I’ll concede that certain arguments against the dangers of radical Islam are at least somewhat controversial. As such, not all who speak out against them support a hidden agenda to advance Islamism. An example might be the Disney employee, Imane Boudlal, who sued Disneyto allow her to wear her hijab rather than Disney garb as a greeter at Disneyland. Although her supporters are misguided and being used as pawns by Islamists, they might truly feel this is her right as an American.  These anti-Sharia bills, however, whose only purpose is to protect the sanctity of our Constitution, leave no room for obfuscation.

State Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Detroit, the first Muslim woman to serve in the Michigan legislature, has spoken out against the Agema bill.  Victor Begg, a co-founder of the Council of Islamic Organizations of Michigan, called the bill “appalling.” “Some in our party find it politically opportune to target my faith by sponsoring an innocuous sounding bill, knowing well that their intent is so-called ‘creeping Sharia,’ Begg said. Many in the mainstream media have also condemned Agema and his bill.

The Center for Security Policy in Washington, a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization  specializing in assessing “threats to American security”, has identified more than fifty instances where Sharia has already been referenced in the application of U.S. law.  The most notorious of these Sharia-friendly rulings occurred in New Jersey last year. Family court judge Joseph Charles decided not to grant a restraining order to a woman who was sexually abused by her Moroccan husband and forced repeatedly to have sex with him. Charles’ rationale was “that the  [defendant] was operating under his belief [Islamic law] that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his [religious] practices and it was something that was not prohibited.” In other words: deference to Sharia trumps the U.S. Constitution, common sense and our most basic Judeo-Christian principles. Thankfully, the New Jersey appellate court overruled this preposterous decision. Based upon this case alone it’s clear that laws forbidding Sharia in America are a pretty good idea.

Similar legislation to Agema’s bill has been proposed in almost half of the states. To date, though, only Tennessee and Oklahoma have enacted these into law and in Oklahoma a federal judge has blocked its implementation to consider its potential violation of the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of religious freedom.

In summary; to repudiate anti-Sharia laws that clarify the inviolability of our constitution is synonymous with supporting the Islamization of America. Res ipsa loquitur is a well-known Latin term for “the thing speaks for itself”. It is aptly applied to these objectors who, in their fervor to attack all opposition to their shrouded march toward American Islamization, reveal their true colors.


2011-09-02T20:06:16+00:00 September 2nd, 2011|

Public School Converted To Islamic Center

Posted at by Dr. Marc Weisman Jun 28th 2011 at 5:17 am in Featured StoryIslamIslamic extremism,PoliticsshariaComments (133)

As you read this, be mindful that it could just as easily be your community—and probably will be, eventually. Farmington, Michigan’s Public School Board of Education voted unanimously to sell their vacant Eagle Elementary School to the Islamic Cultural Association (ICA) for $1.1 million. The transaction was kept secret until the sale was nearly (some say clearly) complete. Many in the community have decried this as an under-handed sale intended to circumvent the largely Christian and Jewish residents of the immediate area. Much of the controversy is the ICA’s association with the HUDA school of Franklin, Michigan—just a few miles away. The HUDA school was ultimately denied their expansion which was the intended site for the ICA two years ago. The HUDA school could not satisfactorily reconcile the charge that they secretly wanted this new structure, in the charming and historic downtown area, to be a mosque. They refuted the charge despite the fact that their website, openly but prematurely, celebrated the soon-to-be new Franklin Village Islamic Center and Mosque. They also failed to explain why cars regularly fill their parking lot until the wee hours of the morning in this “children’s” school, particularly on weekends. Another disturbing issue was their refusal to reveal the source of their funding which many believe to be Saudi-Wahhabi in origin. More recently but equally disturbing is he HUDA school’s recent invitation to the highly controversial and pugnacious anti-Israel Jew, Norman Finkelstein, to speak at their center in this largely Jewish village. So, when the ICA again claims that they simply desire to have a community center in the Farmington school for their children—although few Muslims currently live in this area—many are incredulous and believe this to be just one more example of Al-Taqiyya.

Al-Taqiyya is the Islamic equivalent to using deceit, concealment and “tradecraft” in order to advance the cause of Islam.  The Qur’an (16:106, 3:54, 3:28, 40:28) and the Hadith (49:857, 84:64-65) are replete in spelling out the circumstances when a Muslim can and should deceive infidels for a greater purpose. Al-Taqiyya must be appreciated if one is to understand the nature of nonviolent Jihad. In centuries past, Muslims practiced al-Takiyya as a means of defense and subterfuge against enemies, such as during the Spanish Inquisition. Today, radical Islam uses this as a necessary tool that extremists living in non-Muslim lands (Dar al-Harb) utilize to deceive their unsuspecting compatriots into believing they are assimilating while they are actually engaging in nonviolent Jihad against their host societies. Islamic jurisprudence has sanctioned this deception in modern times as depicted in confiscated al-Qaeda training manuals. It is said that al-Takiyya is “in tongue only, not the heart.”


We must not forget the stated mission of the Muslim Brotherhood which is to penetrate and conquer the infidel lands, most notably, America. That organizations ruling document states that Muslims are compelled to use deception to mask the intended goals;  ”The Ikhwan [Muslim soldier, in this instance a Believer in the unbeliever’s lands] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

It’s a tragic shame that we feel compelled to view our Muslim neighbors with such suspicion. There is plenty of blame to go around for this. We can blame the naysaying liberals whose blind tolerance of the world’s most intolerant people defies logic. Or we can hold the media accountable for their obsession with moral equivalency. Also complicit are the silent “Silent Majority” of Muslims who probably just want to live their lives anonymously but lose the privilege when they utterly fail to combat the Jihadist cancer in their ranks—forcing us to. Their conspicuous absenteeism simply leaves us wanting in terms of understanding their true intentions and their loyalty to America or lack thereof. Mostly, however, we should blame the radical Islamic schemers leading this slow but steady infiltration of our nation as they have so successfully done in Western Europe.

I cannot help but imagine there is a nearby map dotted with pins representing Islamist Trojan horses in cities including those of Franklin, Farmington and West Bloomfield. Maybe it’s just me but it seems ironic that on that same map, just a few miles away, resides the city of Troy.

This may be “coming soon to a theater near you”. For our community, it has already arrived.


2011-06-28T18:55:18+00:00 June 28th, 2011|

Obama’s Peace Offering

Posted on by Dr. Marc Weisman May 24th 2011 at 12:55 pm in Foreign PolicyHistoryIslamic extremism,IsraelMiddle EastObamaPoliticsComments (7)

President Obama’s recent Middle East vision statement is highly disturbing—even for this president it stands out. His perfidious demand that Israel recede to 1967 borders is imprudent, callow and dangerously amateurish. Does he actually expect this terminally weakened and militarily indefensible position of 1967 borders to be Israel’s starting point for the remaining negotiations? Obama once again confuses America’s friends with its foes. Ironically, I watched the president’s Middle Eastern policy speech from a London hotel room where two streets over a “free Palestine march” raged on. I say ironically because I had just returned from the Churchill Museum (one of my great hero’s) and was contemplating the far-reaching mistakes of Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement policies. Once again Obama squanders his political mojo (in this case from killing Bin Laden) by advancing his appeasement policies through pressuring our ally rather than our adversary.


Allow me to provide a little history on Israel. Most (not all but most) of the 800,000 or so Arabs who left Israel in 1948 did so voluntarily to avoid the crossfire of five Arab armies that rained upon the tiny nation immediately after its birth. They had every expectation that their Arab brethren would drive the Jews into the sea and they’d be back in their homes within a week or two. Well, a funny thing happened: the Jews won—and they continued to win every war that their tiny country (comprising just 1% of the Middle East) has fought to defend itself from its hostile   neighbors. To forty seven Arab and Muslim nations, Jews occupying even this miniscule, arid and near-empty desert from which modern Israel has burgeoned was and remains unacceptable. Their obsession with Israel is incessant. Let’s also remember that some 800,000 Jews actually were forcibly banished from a number of Arab nations as a punishment for the UN’s creation of the state of Israel in 1948. Unlike Israel that absorbed the 800,000 Jewish refugees, the Arab refugees were stranded because no Arab nation would admit them. Why? Because Arabia wanted these refugees to be a perpetual thorn in the side of the Jewish state. The other reason is that these refugees, later-named “Palestinians “, are considered a second class citizen to most of the Arab world. Let’s also remember that 3,000 years before the first Muslim existed, Jews lived in the land of Israel. This is despite the intentional disinformation that is promulgated by Islamists from London and Paris to American college campuses who daily refute this inconvenient truth of history.

But I digress; back to Obama. It’s incredible when you stop to think about it, that he has been on the wrong side of just about every issue. Here are some examples. From his first ever interview as president with the Muslim television station Al-Arabia he has been shamelessly pandering and inexplicably tolerant of the most intolerant people on earth. As the Iraq war winds down let’s recall that he was fervently opposed to the surge that won that war—I mean he literally campaigned on it. I actually do credit him with overcoming his ideology to continue the chase for Bin Laden. However, he was very quick to take virtually all of the credit when at least part of it is due to the very techniques of coercive interrogation he vehemently opposes. And then there is the ongoing Eric Holder “investigation” of the very CIA operatives who supplied at least some of the necessary information that helped lead us to Bin Laden.  He naïvely believes the “Arab Spring” is some kind of civil rights movement. Not that I blame all of these nations for revolting against their corrupt despots but when those who would be king are the Muslim Brotherhood and their creed I am not so sure. Call me callous but I prefer the oppressive autocrats who at least kept these crazy Islamists at bay. He also failed to support the Western-sympathizing young Iranians in their attempt to overthrow Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs just as he is currently failing to properly support the uprising against Assad in Syria. Assad is a pro-Iranian puppet who is an enemy of peace and of America. Obama’s words and actions on the Syrian uprising are awkward, desultory and weak. Obama has made it clear from the beginning that his strategy in dealing with radical Islam will be one of “balance” and appeasement and he has remained true to his word. His infamous 2009 Cairo speech introduced this policy of placation by ever so blithely reproaching the backwater, misogynistic, intolerant and undemocratic Arab regimes even as he called out the tiny democracy of Israel as the main impediment to Israeli-Palestinian peace. He reinforced this in the newest rendition of his Middle East policy.

President Obama’s petition that Israel surrenders lands it won in defensive wars and needs for its security against rabid enemies is an incredulous betrayal of one of our closest allies. He treats our friends like foes and foes like friends.  Yep, he’s got a real knack for being AWOL when he should be counted and present when he should be mute. This most recent Obama vision for peace (or mirage) is the clearest line yet drawn in the sand that our president’s agenda is not aligned with mainstream America…or reality.



2011-05-24T19:36:11+00:00 May 24th, 2011|

Freedom isn't free or at least it shouldn't be

Posted on by Dr. Marc Weisman Mar 31st 2011 at 2:27 am in Featured StoryForeign PolicyIslamic extremism,ObamaPoliticsStrategyTerrorism |

When I hear the phrase “rebel fighter” it conjures up images of Star War’s Luke Skywalker fighting the evil empire. So that must mean we are on the right side of this Libyan “kinetic” action, right? Perhaps. In regional conflicts as in most things in life, the facts surrounding them are not one dimensional or even two; they are complicated. On the one hand we know that without intervention Qaddafi will continue to massacre his own people-he actually told us he would. If the US is able to thwart another madman from killing thousands of his people, many say that we are obligated to intervene. On the other hand, we are bogged down in three wars (including the War on Terror that our administration denies exists) and we are broke. Before we risk more US lives and treasure on yet another Middle East escapade, it might be wise to learn a little more about these so-called rebels we are rescuing.

The chief opposition to most Middle-Eastern despot’s are not very Luke Skywalker-like—they are Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood and their ilk. The National Review’s Andy McCarthy and others have been researching some of the ignoble characters in the Libyan opposition. One example is a Libyan leader Abdul Hakim al Hasadi, a recent “guest” of the US Marines in Pakistan. Hasadi proudly says that he was picked up after leaving Afghanistan where he was fighting the foreign invaders (us). He was eventually handed over to Libya in 2008. Although he claims to oppose terrorism, he is no friend of America. He is not only a violent Islamist; he is one who boasts of his conscription of some twenty-five fellow “rebels” to kill the “American invaders” in Muslim lands. Did I mention that Hasadi belongs to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), which is an al-Qaeda ally?  Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy to aid and abet this “rebel” doesn’t it?

In contradistinction to upstanding citizens like Hasadi is this story. I have a 60 year-old patient, we’ll name him David C, who has worked for a myriad of oil companies. His latest deployment happened to be just south of Benghazi eight months ago. After he recalled for me his harrowing trek last week through the desert to escape Libya on a British warship, I asked about the people of Libya. David has read my book, Re-United States and he well understands the concept of Islamism. He finds the people of Benghazi to be “decent, very friendly to American’s and definitely non-Islamist”.

No doubt the truth about these rebels probably includes each of these paradigms and everything in between. So where does this leave us? Wishful that the more secular, freedom-desiring young Libyan “rebels” will win out over the Jihadist’s? Hopeful that our intervention to save Arab lives will curry favor in the Muslim world? Or resigned that many Muslims will continue to despise us and that the Islamists will fill every vacuum we create?

I don’t know the answers to these questions but of this I am certain. We should have negotiated that at $0.6M-$1.2M a pop for Tomahawk missiles, we be reimbursed our expenses. Why are we funding the liberation of yet another oil rich Arab nation from its tyrannical dictator? It would be nice to retrofit that agreement to Iraq as well. I for one would endure the image of impropriety for hundred’s of billions of dollars returned to the national coffers.   Whoever said that freedom is free?


2011-03-31T11:27:53+00:00 March 31st, 2011|

Radio interview WGCH 1490

I was interviewed to discuss my book, Re-United States on Saturday, March 12, 2011. The radio interview on WGCH 1490 aired in CT and NY the week of March 14, 2011

2011-03-19T12:31:24+00:00 March 19th, 2011|

Fighting the Islamists: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

Posted on  by Dr. Marc Weisman Feb 28th 2011 at 5:03 pm in Islamic extremismIsraelMedia Criticism,Middle EastPoliticsTerrorismshariaComments (20)

I’m thankful that more and more people and their governments seem to be finding their voice as they speak out against the blight that is radical Islam. It remains, however, very much a mixed bag—more on that in a minute. Islamism versus the rest of us is a classic example of good versus evil or white hat versus black. And the stakes are high because what hangs in the balance is the 5,000 year odyssey of human civilization. So, what exactly has changed?

Virtually all Western European leaders are publicly decrying the mortal danger that their appeasement of Islam has brought them. Some Muslims in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, Jordan and even Iran are challenging the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood and the radical Iranian hardliners. That said, make no mistake; the democracy that many in the region are calling for isn’t the Jeffersonian variety. A solid minority continues to abhor Christians and Jews, America and Israel, and the West in general. Nonetheless, this still represents progress. The people of Oklahoma passed legislation (currently stayed by a federal injunction) banning the implementation of Shari’a in their state.  Germany’s Angela Merkel, England’s David Cameron and France’s Nicolas Sarkozy have all openly confessed the abject failure of Europe’s attempt at so-called Islamic multiculturalism. Each has vociferously lamented what political correctness has brought them—a large and growing segregated Muslim population that rejects assimilation into their respective societies. Rep. Peter King (R-NY) is holding hearings on the floor of congress to assess the threat that stealth Jihad poses. Senator Mark Kirk is educating his colleagues in the other house on the dangers of Shari’a. All of these instances suggest a new era of speaking out against Islamism.

On the other hand, our president has not added his voice of condemnation to those of our European allies. Once again he missed an opportunity to create “change you can count on”, I mean desirable change, you know, the kind that most of us actually want to occur.  Iranian Mullahs are racing toward nuclear weapons even as they are killing protesters in the street while the world pretends not to see. Holland and Austria are suspending freedom of speech as they prosecute those who speak out against radical Islam. Then there is the truly unbelievable United Nations. This esteemed body is pursuing their pathetic Defamation of Religions Resolution. This abomination of international law whose putative goal is to protect religion is really an invention by Islamists and other shady characters to do quite something else. Its actual purpose is to promote Islam as it enervates Christianity and Judaism; the latter via the de-legitimization and eventual destruction of the state of Israel. Once again, Obama is curiously—or not so curiously— AWOL as he watches silently from the bleachers. Moreover, the UN Security Council met last Friday, in serious deliberation regarding the situation in the Middle East. That seems reasonable considering that nearly the entire region is on fire with civil unrest, riots, revolution and mass murder. The problem is that the Council turned a blind eye to the seven Muslim nations in the midst of chaos and revolt—no, they met to condemn the state of Israel for its settlement-building policies. Settlements while Arabia burns? Is that the best they can do? For the UN to choose this issue at this time is ineffably absurd. Once again, the mainstream media is not touching this monumental hypocrisy.

So, as I said, it is a mixed bag but at least some are finding the courage to address the madness of Islamism in the bright light of day. I guess we should celebrate every victory, however dwarfed by those who promulgate hate and their enablers who work so hard to ignore it. One step forward, two steps back.

2011-03-05T10:10:17+00:00 March 5th, 2011|

Mr. President: Please Stand for Something

Posted at by Dr. Marc Weisman Feb 7th 2011 at 4:59 am in CongressFeatured StoryForeign PolicyIslamic extremismMiddle EastObamaTerrorismsharia Comments (87)

Most Americans agree that democracy is a desirable system of government for most people in the world. The route to reach it, however, is anything but simple. With current events in Arabia, the Obama administration once again finds itself out of its depth—and once again it is reactionary. Worse yet, the reaction is wrong.

Chaos anywhere on earth is usually a harbinger of disaster. This is especially so in the dry kindle of the Middle East, where most disasters invariably concern the expansion of Islamism. Consider Iran (whose 1979 revolution had many of the same features as Egypt’s does today) and the crazy Mullahs. Think about Lebanon: a country that was recently “acquired” by Iran’s surrogate, Hezbollah. Similarly, ponder the expansion of Hamas into the Gaza strip. Let’s hope we don’t add Jordan to this list of chaos-stricken nations in the upcoming weeks. For now, however, the world turns its attention to Egypt, which is in many regards the largest and most important Muslim nation.

In geopolitics, there are no cookie-cutter solutions to political problems. But make no mistake: careful, insightful, morally clear, and competent statesmanship often pays off. Unfortunately, American policy seems to be lacking all of the above.

The recent Iranian uprising desperately needed the US’ moral, political, and perhaps material support. What did the people clamoring for our help in the streets of Teheran receive? Words. Idealistic, simplistic, and unrealistic words. We utterly failed to support the opposition to the Mullahs and probably squandered a singular opportunity for Iranian regime change from within.

Egypt, a different case for sure, also needs support—and I believe moral direction—from the US.  What has it received? More words, and  ill-considered words at that. As Robert Spencer puts it, this week the Obama administration “gave the green light” to include the Muslim Brotherhood in any new Egyptian government. What a colossal mistake.

I remind readers of the Muslims Brotherhood’s (MB) long-term motto:

Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.

The Muslim Brotherhood spawned virtually every major radical Islamic movement on earth. Exercising Islamist Al Taqiyya (deception), they have recently renounced terrorism even as they continue to fully support Islamism and the terror groups they birthed. This is the apotheosis of Stealth Jihad: the conversion and defeat of the secular West by exploiting our embarrassing policies of appeasement.  A sad example of this is the current mainstream media’s frenetic attempt to “sanitize” the MB as a reformed and “moderate”, whatever that means, organization.

On the senate floor, Senator Mark Kirk introduced Mohammed Badi, a top MB leader, as having been “elected the Eighth General Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood in January 2010.”  A few months ago, Mr. Badi said, “We will continue to raise the banner of Jihad and the Koran in our confrontation with the enemy of Islam.” This week, another MB leader, Muhammad Ghannem, purportedly told the Al-Alam Iranian news network that he “would like to see the Egyptian people prepare for war against Israel.” He went on to say that the Suez Canal should be “closed immediately… in order to bring about the downfall of the Mubarak regime.”

Kirk again: “While we support human rights and democracy, we must heed growing warnings about the Muslim Brotherhood, their leaders, and plans for taking Egypt back to the 13th century. We have seen this movie before—in Iran, in Lebanon, and in Gaza…  An Egypt locked under Sharia law and oppressing women, Christians and Jews would be a catastrophic setback for progress in the Middle East. Such a state could renounce the Camp David peace accords or even start yet another war with Israel.”

Can anyone please explain to me the logic behind inviting this group to participate in the “new Egypt”? Here’s a novel idea: how about the president actually promulgating American values, such as real freedom, liberty, minority rights, women’s rights and at least tolerating the continued existence of those who practice a different faith? Is this asking too much from an American president? Must Obama always pander to these backward, hateful zealots? Let’s all hope that our newly elected Congress (including people like Senator Mark Kirk) will result in a  more balanced and rational policy.

For a while, I thought that Obama’s conciliatory stance toward radical Islam was just a symptom of the president tripping over his inveterate ideology. Now I am not so sure.

Take a look at some of his appointments and associations.  On the very first day of his presidency, Obama showed a readiness to accept the Muslim Brotherhood by choosing Ingrid Mattson, president of The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), to offer a prayer at the National Cathedral during inaugural festivities. Mattson, a convert to Islam who describes herself as a moderate spokesperson, might have seemed to be a reasonable choice but for one disturbing fact—the ISNA has recognized ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and radical organizations like Hamas.

In a speech at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government a year before the inaugural, Mattson tried to create enmity between Jews and Christian conservatives by stating that “Right-wing Christians are very risky allies for American Jews, because [Christians] are really anti-Semitic. They do not like Jews.” Mattson was clearly an agenda-driven and divisive choice. To be fair, after it was publicly revealed that Mattson secretly met with Hamas, Obama fired her in 2009.

The Obama administration’s chief adviser on Islamic affairs is another enigma. This woman, Dalia Mogahed, serves on the Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships; in addition, she is a firm supporter of CAIR and ISNA and is an admitted pro-Sharia Muslim, so reports Robert Spencer and Nonie Darwish.

Yet another curious appointment is Arif Alikhan. He is serving as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development at the Department of Homeland Security. Alikhan is affiliated with the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). The problem is that MPAC is widely reported as having links to the Muslim Brotherhood.

To recap: the Obama administration’s contentious appointments, repeated missteps in Middle Eastern policy, and a de facto invitation for the Muslim Brotherhood to participate in the next Egyptian government certainly reveal a disturbing pattern. At best, these are sophomoric attempts to show Muslims at home and abroad that our war against radical Islam is not a war against Islam itself. At worst, might there be some deep seated pro-fundamentalist Muslim psyche at play—perhaps from his childhood—that the president just can’t shake off? Frankly, I no longer care what Obama’s motivations are for his actions. I just want the madness to stop before we suffer irreparable harm.

2011-02-07T15:08:44+00:00 February 7th, 2011|

The Arizona Shooting and Jihad: Immoral Equivalency?!

Posted on by Dr. Marc Weisman Jan 13th 2011 at 1:32 am in Featured StoryIslamic extremismPolitics,TerrorismshariaComments (16)

Few noticed a disturbing and remarkable comment made by Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton yesterday. While taping a satellite television show for Arab women at Zayed University in Abu Dhabi, Ms. Clinton compared the alleged psychotic killer in the tragic Arizona shootings, Jared Loughery, to Islamic extremists. Her comments; “look, we have extremists in my country,  a wonderful, incredibly brave young woman Congress member, Congresswoman Giffords, was just shot by an extremist in our country. We have the same kinds of problems.” These comments are not as insignificant or benign as they may seem. All indications are that Loughner is a crazed killer, not a terrorist. Clinton’s comments draw a kind of “immoral equivalency” between a severely mentally ill person and Islamic Jihad; an organized, worldwide and religiously motivated extremist movement bent on destroying the West and replacing it with their view of what the world should be.

Although par for the course for the ever-placating Obama administration, these statements which were uttered on Arab soil, are emblematic of the perfectly wrong approach adopted by the current administration in their dealing with Islamism. Rather than hold Muslims accountable for the heinous Islamist ideology that plagues their religion, Ms. Clinton gives the sick culture of global Jihad yet another pass by comparing them to a mentally deranged individual.The implication is that they’ve got a few crackpots in a cave somewhere and we’ve got a few too. Personally, I prefer the past two days reprehensible leftist comments blaming Loughners alleged shooting spree on the political right’s usual suspects to Clinton’s words that effectively deflate the significance of Islamists and thereby insulate them. The ridiculous and desperate attempts to exploit this tragedy for partisan gain by the political left have no real promise for traction. The Secretary of States comments, on the other hand, intensifies the very real threat we face from radical Islam.

2011-01-13T21:09:27+00:00 January 13th, 2011|