1309 Radicalism By Any Other Name
It has been a year since members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Judiciary Committee sent letters to the Inspectors General of five separate federal departments (Defense, State, Justice, National Intelligence and Homeland Security) requesting investigations into the presence of the Muslim Brotherhood inside the United States government.
It is important to remember that these requests did not come from fringe internet bloggers or conspiracy theorists. Instead, the letters were authored by respected members of two key congressional committees with access to sometimes privileged information.
In spite of that, the response from their colleagues and especially from establishment Republicans was swift, cowardly and shameful. Instead of being alarmed by the documented concerns of five U.S. Congressmen, Sen. John McCain referred to the requests as “ugly” attacks and called for an immediate end to them. Sen. Scott Brown, RINO extraordinaire, claimed that the concerns by high-ranking Americans had “no place in our public discourse”. Not to be outdone, Sen. Lindsey Graham said that the “attacks” were “ridiculous, really off-base, inappropriate”. Representing the House establishment, House Speaker John Boehner moaned that the “accusations” were “dangerous”.
Since that June 2012 letter, a lot has happened but nothing that would address internal threats to our nation from within our own government. Rep. Bachmann and her four co-authors have garnered support and been targeted for retribution. Most tellingly, there has been a massive silence from her detractors since an Egyptian magazine (Rose El-Youssef) – yes, Egyptian – broke the news that there were indeed at least half a dozen Brotherhood sympathizers within the hierarchy of the Obama administration.
The logical question from all this should be, “Why has nothing moved?” The answer is not going to be found by focusing on only radical Islam or Washington’s clueless liberals and RINO’s. The answer is blatantly philosophical, a matter of the principle players’ political “wiring”, if you will.
Radicals are the same the world over whether they are American leftists or Middle Eastern religious extremists. They understand each other and are drawn to each other. They believe that they are at war. War being what it is, they conduct no-holds-barred battles of deception and opportunism while their enemies (constitutionalists, conservatives and old-style patriots) muddle around expecting everyone to play by the rules.
Hillary Rodham captured the essence of radicalism in her 1969 senior thesis. It was a study of Saul Alinsky’s book “Reveille for Radicals”. She personally interviewed Alinsky for it. The title of her 92-page promotion of radicalism said it all, “There Is Only the Fight…”
That the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) is a radical Islamist power is beyond dispute, in spite of the efforts of every post-9/11 president’s efforts to convince us otherwise. It always has been and always will be. Terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and al-Qaeda are little more than MB subsidiaries. As the 2008 Holy Land Foundation trial revealed, MB has an intricate network of front groups in the United States, including the unindicted co-conspirator CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations – CAIR), which have massive influence in Washington.
President Obama is a radical leftist, he always has been and always will be. Challenged with a choice between principles of radicalism or anything else, the Obama administration will decide toward the radicalism every time no matter what the issue is. Most of the President’s trusted advisors are of the same persuasion including Arif Alikhan, Rashad Hussain, Salam al-Marayati, Mohammed Elibiary, Imam Mohamed Magic and Eboo Patel. They may have their religious differences, but they understand each other and share the same vision for utopia.
Is there a presence of the Brotherhood in Washington? As the 16-page heavily documented Bachmann response to Rep. Keith Ellison (D) demonstrates, of course there is. Is that presence a security risk? Apparently it depends on whom you ask. Just don’t ask a radical or an establishment Republican or our clearly clueless Secretary of Defense. No matter what the purveyors of politically correct rhetoric claim, a radical by any other name is still a radical.