The Party Of Mosques, Minarets and Mullahs – The Democrats As Islam’s Enablers
A week before Christmas, 82 House members (all Democrats) sponsored a resolution condemning “violence, bigotry and hateful rhetoric toward Muslims in the United States.” Note the conflation – violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric. An honest discussion of Islamic terrorism is thus equated with pogroms.
In the wake of the San Bernardino slaughter, the Party of Mosques, Minarets and Mullahs mobilized to defend the Religion of Peace and its more enthusiastic adherents. Allah forbid someone should challenge the insanity of bringing thousands of Muslim refugees here, notwithstanding the unanimous opinion of Obama’s security advisors that they can’t be adequately screened.
Where are the Democratic resolutions protesting the alarming rise of anti-Semitism in this country, much of it due to the alarming growth of Islam? According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, in 2013, 60.3% of all religion-based hate crimes were anti-Jewish, while only 13.7% were anti-Muslim. Imagine where the Jews would be if a Jewish civil servant and his foreign bride shot up a Christmas party in Southern California. A Jewish psychiatrist murdered 13 and wounded another 30 at Ft. Hood, and two Jewish brothers planted bombs at the finish line of the Boston Marathon.
Other instances of the Democratic Muslim-mania:
• On December 4, Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) and several of his colleagues announced that they would attend Friday prayers at a Virginia mosque in a show of solidarity with imaginary victims of a non-existent anti-Muslim backlash. Not just any Virginia mosque, but the Dar al-Hijrah Mosque, where several of the 9/11 hijackers and the Ft. Hood killer prayed, and whose former imam, Anwar al-Awlaki, became a spokesman for al Qaeda, before he was killed by a U.S. drone strike. When are Beyer and the other stooges going to a Syrian Orthodox Church to protest the wanton slaughter of Christians in Syria and throughout the Middle East?
• The day after San Bernardino, Attorney General Loretta Lynch spoke at the 10th anniversary dinner of the Muslim Advocates, a group with terrorist ties, telling them: “Now obviously this is a country that is based on free speech, but when it edges toward violence, when we see someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric… when we see that, we will take action.” Incitement is illegal. But what’s edging toward violence? It sounds like: “We’ll prosecute speech we don’t like, and screw the First Amendment.” What action is DOJ contemplating against the Muslim in Brooklyn who punched a Jewish bookstore owner in the eye on December 1, shouting “F— you Jews. I’ll kill you all”? For the Obama regime, Jews and Christians ride in the back of the bus.
• On December 7, Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson appeared with Imam Mohammed Magid at the Virginia-based All Dulles Area Muslim Society. An invitation to the event urged, “We must work together to prevent hate crimes and intimidation.” When FOX News noted that Magid “serves as a leading member of an Islamic organization long suspected of having ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas,” did that constitute a hate crime or an attempt at intimidation?
• On December 4, the White House announced that Rob Malley, NSC Coordinator for the Middle East and North Africa, will now serve as the president’s senior advisor on countering ISIS. Before he joined the administration, Malley urged Washington to negotiate with groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. In an op-ed, he observed that Hamas (which specializes in the cold-blooded murder of Israeli women and children) “has deep loyalty (so did Hitler), it has a charitable organization, a social branch – it is not something you could defeat militarily either.” On the other hand, carpet bombing is a powerful inducement.
• Interviewed on ABC’s “This Week,” Hillary Clinton said that while there may be “radical elements with a dangerous and distorted view,” the term “radical Islam” sounds like the U.S. is going after an entire religion. Of course, she’s right. From the perspective of Islam, the actions of groups like ISIS and al Qaeda are normative, not radical. In the past, Hillary has had no problem labeling Christians who disagree with her on abortion and gay marriage, radical and extremist.
• When the party’s leader, Muslim-first-name, Muslim-middle-name Obama speaks of Islam, it’s like Donald Trump talking about his poll numbers. In 2009, there was his pilgrimage of repentance to the Muslim world. In his Cairo speech, he insisted that representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood be seated in the front row. He ordered the term “jihad” stricken from FBI and Homeland Security counterterrorism manuals. At the 2014 National Prayer Breakfast, he defended Islam by attacking Christianity for things that happened between 500 and 1,000 years ago. Long after the truth was known, he insisted that the Benghazi attack was spurred by a video that “slandered Islam’s prophet.” Following San Bernardino, he ordered the FBI to downplay the terrorism angle.
His December 6th Oval Office address to persuade the nation that he’s doing something or other about ISIS was so Barack. The president repeated his favorite fiction – that the “hateful ideology” of groups like ISIS and al Qaeda are interpretations of Islam which are incompatible with “the values of religious tolerance, mutual respect and human dignity” on which the religion of peace is based. The third of Muslim Americans who say violence is justified against infidels who insult Mohammed or the Koran, and the 45% of British Muslims who believe imams preaching jihad against the West represent “mainstream Islam” didn’t get the memo.
There probably are millions of Muslims around the world who want to live in peace with their neighbors – not because of the tenets of Islam but in spite of them.
The Democrats’ Islamophilia was ordained by the party’s leftward drift. Here are a few of the reasons why what was once the party of Jefferson (who fought the Barbary pirates) and JFK (who confronted our enemies abroad) now seems joined at the hip with Islam.
- The Democrats endless quest for new victims – It’s the party of victimhood whose clients now include racial and sexual minorities, illegal immigrants, men who want to be women, the Black Lives Matters clowns, feminists and women who have been sexually abused (unless the abuser was Hillary’s husband). Democrats see Muslims as another persecuted minority and – say – who needs a hug?
- It’s an emphatic rejection of decades of U.S. foreign/defense policy by die-hard isolationists – Supposedly, our interventions created a backlash in the Muslim world, resulting in a mutation totally at odds with 7th century Islam or 15th century Islam, or the Islam that supported the Third Reich (personified by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem) or any other Islam that’s existed in the course of its 1,300-year history.
- Democrats see the growth of the Muslim population of the United States as a way to counter Christians who cling to their bibles, guns and animus toward the other.
- For them, virtue is based on skin color – unless you’re Ben Carson or Clarence Thomas. Muslims are seen as a Third World people whose lands were colonized, earning them a coveted spot among the wretched of the earth. But didn’t the Turks have an empire? And aren’t members of other religions treated wretchedly wherever Islam holds sway?
- They’re another constituency whose grievances and alienation can be mined for votes – An exit poll found 89% of Muslims who voted in 2012 cast their ballots for Obama.
At the 2012 Democratic National Convention, a majority of delegates wanted to take casual references to God and Jerusalem as Israel’s capital out of their platform.
An imam will give the opening prayer at this year’s nominating convention. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi will place Hillary’s name in nomination and Donald Trump will be beheaded in effigy in the closing ceremony.
First published at GrasstopsUSA.com
Top 6 on BarbWire.com
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.