- Creeping Sharia
A new book has come out by two New York Times reporters (Imagine that!) accusing President Obama of multiple "impeachable offenses", one of which is allowing access of Muslim Brotherhood operatives into his administration.
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2013/10/28/obama-letting-muslim-brotherhood-run-anti-terror-ops/
Here is a related article by the Investigative Project on Terrorism based on an Egyptian expose (also included).
http://www.investigativeproject.org/3868/a-man-and-6-of-the-brotherhood-in-the-white-house
I note that one of the people listed in the above links is Eboo Patel, who is part of Obama's advisory council on faith-based partnerships. The article points out Mr Patel's previous involvement on a panel including Tariq Ramadan and Siraj Wahhaj ("America is a garbage can"), both of whom I have written on previously.
Mr Patel will be appearing at UC Irvine on the evening of November 5 and speaking on the topic of "Peace". Below is what Discover the Networks has to say about Patel:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2565
4 comments:
It seems as though Adam Gadahn is doing the vetting for this administration.
Incidentally, this is the latest on him...http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/19/politics/adam-gadahn-ambassador-attack-video/'
It is strange for a "post-racial" president to give first preference for positions to Muslins, then to blacks, and last to women.
It must make them feel good about themselves.
Senator Joseph McCarthy once appeared on a panel with Rep. Eugene McCarthy. Now which of them was "tainted" by that appearance???
I see Gary has now acknowledged that New York Times reporters can be correct. A real milestone, that.
I don't see evidence these characters operate in the highest levels of the State or Defense departments. A solid argument could be made that they are President Obama's useful idiots, doing his work for him while thinking that they have real influence.
But I think the truth is even more mundane than that. Their presence is about as meaningful as the questionnaires I get in the mail and online from the Democratic National Committee and Organizing For America, always posing as wanting my thoughts to help develop policy, but ending with a hard-nosed appeal for funds. (They send millions of such questionnaires out and probably don't read any of them).
These guys can "talk" to people in the administration, and receive vague platitudes from them. The ship of state sails on, for better or for worse.
What Siarlys thinks and $10.00 will get him a cup of coffee at Starbucks (sound familiar??)
What I think is a modification of the preceding commentary on the available "evidence." I THINK what the evidence shows is even more mundane that what, on its face, the evidence does show.
Or is this distinction too hard for you to comprehend, elwood?
Post a Comment