The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

The Islamic Candidate?

I commented on a Daniel Greenfield FrontPage column
of December 24th, “Muslim
Immigration is Exactly What ISIS Wants
.” In it, Greenfield argues that ISIS
wants to send thousands of its “fighters” to Europe and especially to the U.S.,
for the purpose of establishing operational bases for terrorism.
Agreeing
with everything said by Mr. Greenfield concerning ISIS’s tactics and overall
strategy, a crucial question is: Because Obama wants to bring in tens of
thousands of Muslim “refugees,” and knows damned well there will be
scores of ISIS agents among them, is this what he wants? Is he acting as an
agent for ISIS? …I can posit an answer, but this is a question which would
naturally occur to anyone observing Obama’s actions and statements.
And that has been over the years, at least seven of
them. In June 2008 I penned a five-part commentary on the rise of Barack Obama,
“The Year of the Long Knives,” which is accessible here.
(That series does not mention Islam or Muslims even once.  It dwells chiefly on the mooning crush on Obama
our decrepit “aristocracy of money” has exhibited.) In this column I am
positing an answer. It is purely speculative.
If it smacks of a “conspiracy theory,” so be it.
Because, after all, what exactly is a “conspiracy”? It is a plan, a long-range one,
featuring many shadowy co-conspirators and their dupes and dogberries, together
with secret funding and a knack for devious dissimulation. The term “conspiracy
theory” has garnered the dubious distinction of being the exclusive preserve of
garden variety kooks and of men who wear aluminum foil hats to better
communicate with the aliens who are working with the Rosicrucians allied with
the Elders of Zion to take over the earth.
And if there are observable, plausible, demonstrable
dots to connect which, when connected, begin to show the outline and elements
of a “conspiracy,” then one has a “theory.” Then the task is to pursue the
devil in the details. Sometimes a conspiracy theory is structurally sound but
empty of evidentiary details; other times there is, as Stephen Coughlin put it
in Catastrophic
Failure
,
“…a
tremendous amount of raw data. We denature it, break it into data bits, and
pour it into a soft-science mold….The data on which our understanding is should
have been based now serves only to buttress whichever theory is in vogue.” (p.
453).
In short, the conspiracy theory may be rich in
details but have no credible, realistic structure. It may be a thousand-piece
jigsaw puzzle of blanks on which one can spray-paint any image but that of
Islam.
However, there is
a conspiracy afoot – one that has been walking the walk for many years –
perhaps not even beginning with the Muslim Brotherhood’s description in the 1991
Explanatory
Memorandum
of how to corrupt and take over America and the West, but even
before that, say, in 1928 with the formation of the Muslim Brotherhood by Hassan
al-Banna
. Or in 1964 with the publication of Milestones
by Sayyid Qutb, a
Brotherhood member, whose advocacy of an incremental introduction of Sharia law
is followed “religiously” by his successors.
In Obama’s case, I do not think it is so much a
conspiracy with ISIS and Al-Qaeda, with the Muslim Brotherhood, with CAIR, with
the ISNA, and with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), as it is a
simpatico, symmetrical, ideological marriage made in hell. Islam is
totalitarian; and hates America. Obama’s leftist ideology is totalitarian, and
hates America. The alliance of the Left and Islam is a matter of record. Of
course they would exploit each other’s grand plan to bring down America.  But I doubt very much there is buried email
correspondence or communications between the White House and, say, Abu Bakr
al-Baghdadi
, the leader of the Islamic State, or anything like Hillary
Clinton’s surreptitious emails over Benghazi and her hidden bathroom email
server.
So, I don’t think Obama is our “Islamic Candidate,”
in the way of the half-witted character in 1962’s The Manchurian Candidate.
He was the garrulous,  buffoonish
husband, John Yerkes Iselin, played by James Gregory, of the power-lusting mistress
of manipulation, played by Angela Lansbury (any resemblance in character
between Mrs. Eleanor Shaw Iselin and Hillary Clinton is startlingly
appropriate). She plotted to have his presidential running mate assassinated by
her own son so her husband could take his place as the presidential candidate
and very likely win the White House, where she would be the power in the Oval
Office.
Obama, however, is not a half-wit; he knows what
he’s doing. He has stayed the course of his collectivist agenda ever since
entering politics. He’s shrewd, deceitful, glibly articulate, and a master of
insouciance. That is my kinder description of him. But, is he Putin’s poodle?
Bill Clinton’s gofer? Hillary Clinton’s whipping boy? George Soros’s puppet? Or
Islam’s useful idiot? Or is he just a “lone wolf” executive
jihadi
? I can’t think of a single policy action of his, including the
immigration issue, that hasn’t if not immediately benefited the advance of
Islam, later came home to roost.
So, is what ISIS wants, what Obama wants? Those
reams of unintegrated data possibly presented to him in his morning security
briefings – which Obama may or may not take seriously or even bother to read –
must inform him of ISIS plans to infiltrate into the country with hordes of
Syrian “refugees,” and across the border from Mexico. If we, the public he
wishes to deceive, are aware of these facts, can he not be, regardless of the
accuracy and truth, or lack of such, in the information presented at his
briefings? How can Obama not know
what is going on?
I would say, yes, he knows. He has met with
prominent Muslim figures overseas – who knows what was said between him and
them behind closed doors? – when he met with Saudi
kings
and when he met with officials at Cairo
University
in 2009 and delivered his pro-Islam
speech
. His foreign policy agencies are top-heavy with “moderate” Muslims,
all vetted with so-called security clearances. There are probably more Muslims in
Obama’s administration than there were Communists and fellow travelers in
Roosevelt’s. This cannot be as simple an issue of politically correct hiring policies
– “we mustn’t be beastly or discriminatory towards harmless American Muslims!” –
but rather a signature characteristic of Obama’s administration.
Greenfield’s argument about how Muslim immigration
benefits ISIS (and all the other implicated Islamic entities) is that the more
Muslims are settled in Western countries, and especially in the U.S., the more
potent their presence as colonizers and permanent “settlers” and as
fifth-column type terrorists, ready to go into action once their jihadi psyche
is triggered on orders from afar, or eclectically as individuals. Anything that
enlarges the Ummah, or the global
Islamic collective, benefits the Islamic Movement, even if it’s only a small
pocket of Somalis in Cheyenne, Wyoming. However, writes Greenfield:
The
ritualistic “Why do they hate us” browbeating favored by the chattering classes
is nonsense. Al Qaeda hated us because we were not Muslims. But it was only
using us as the hated “other” to consolidate a collective Muslim identity. We
are to Islamists what the Jews were to Hitler; a useful scapegoat whose
otherness can be used to manufacture a contrasting pure Aryan or Islamic
identity….
No
dialogue is possible with an ideology whose virtue is premised on seeing you as
utterly evil….
ISIS doesn’t plan to defeat
America through acts of terrorism. The plan for defeating America, like every
other country, Muslim or non-Muslim, is to build a domestic Muslim terror
movement that will be able to hold territory and swear allegiance to the
Islamic State….
ISIS does not plan to defeat
America with terror plots. But those plots will eventually accumulate into an
organized domestic terror organization. An Islamic State in America based
around a majority Muslim town or neighborhood with its own leader pledging
allegiance to the Caliph of the Islamic State.
Dearborn, Michigan comes to mind. Greenfield:
Any
Muslim plans for expanding into the West depend on Muslim immigration. Whether
it’s ISIS or its Muslim Brotherhood ancestor, or any of the other Islamist
organizations and networks, they all require manpower. Some of that manpower
will be provided by high Muslim birth rates, but it won’t be nearly enough, not
for a country the size of America, without a large annual flow of Muslim
migrants.
We
are told that halting Muslim immigration would only encourage Muslim terrorism.
But our open door to Muslim immigration certainly hasn’t stopped terrorism.
Instead it has increased it by providing reinforcements to the terrorists. If
we can’t stop Muslim terrorism with the population we have now, how are we
going to manage it if the Islamic population continues doubling and even
tripling?
ISIS doesn’t need to be “offended” by a call to
halt Muslim immigration to the U.S. to launch terrorist attacks. It already has
a plan, a doctrine, and an open conspiracy, as explained in that notorious Explanatory Memorandum from 1991:
“The
process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word
means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] 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.”
If Obama was ever Muslim Brotherhood friendly – and
he certainly hailed the triumph of Mohamed Morsi and the
Brotherhood in Egypt, and even, with
Hillary Clinton
, contributed to Morsi’s rise, albeit it lasted only
a year
– he had to have had knowledge of the Explanatory Memorandum. He has to know that the Brotherhood’s
overall doctrine, which is identical to ISIS’s, and CAIR’s, and the OIC’s, is
to impose Sharia on the West and most particularly on the U.S.
Further on ISIS’s preference for an enabled
immigration of Muslims, Greenfield notes:
Even
if we defeat ISIS tomorrow, Al Qaeda and other Islamist groups descended from
the Muslim Brotherhood will continue pursuing the same goals. And they will
rely on the Muslim population in the United States to provide them with money,
supplies, cover and an infrastructure for terrorism. 
ISIS
can’t defeat us with terror attacks. The only hope for an enduring Islamic
victory over America is through the rise of domestic groups that pledge
allegiance to the Caliphate. ISIS can’t invade America. It has to be invited
in. That’s what our immigration policy does. Trump isn’t a threat to national
security. Muslim immigration is….
Muslim
immigration is the Islamic State’s only hope for victory over America.
In terms of imposing Sharia law on the U.S., it is
also the hope of the Muslim Brotherhood, the OIC, and CAIR, among all the other
Islamic front groups now in the country.
Earlier, I mentioned George Soros. No conspiracy
theories need be fashioned where he is concerned. He has openly supported
Obama’s program to “transform” the country and has meddled in no little way to
steer U.S. foreign policy to his liking, which has been the diminution of American
influence and the reduction of the country into a Balkanized collection of
warring pressure, religious, and ethnic groups. His “rap sheet” on Discover
the Networks
is several pages long. Obama was certainly Soros’s preferred
candidate. This is described in New York Magazine’s October 2007 article, “Money
Chooses Sides
.”
The
investment banker Robert Wolf first met Barack Obama one afternoon in December
in a midtown conference room. Obama was in town to deliver a speech at a
charity dinner for children in poverty at the Mandarin Oriental—but also to
pursue another, less high-minded, but more momentous, objective: to begin the
process of attempting to pick Hillary Clinton’s pocket.
The
conference room belonged to George Soros, the billionaire bête noire of the
right. After talking to Soros for an hour about his prospective bid for the
White House, Obama walked down the hall and found assembled a dozen of the
city’s heaviest-hitting Democratic fund-raisers: investment banker Hassan
Nemazee, Wall Street power Blair Effron, private-equity hotshot Mark Gallogly,
hedge-fund manager Orin Kramer. Most had been big-time John Kerry backers in
2004. Most had a connection to the Clintons. All were officially uncommitted
for 2008.
I have no idea why the author of the article, John Heilemann, would characterize Soros
as “the billionaire bête noire of the right,” when Soros is of the global government
left.  But then journalists from the left
usually see any billionaire as a right-wing, knuckle-dragging fascist. And Heilemann
has a master’s degree from the John
F. Kennedy School
of Government at Harvard, which can explain his
confusion. Further, it is billionaires like Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet,
Mark Zuckerberg, and others who have become the voluble vanguard of global
socialism.
Is Soros a conspirator? I think so. In his role as
a spread-the-wealth, Yes-you-built-that-but-we’re-going-to-take-it-anyway
gadfly, he has spoken against national borders. This was revealed in a November
Breitbart article, “Soros
Admits Involvement in Migrant Crisis
.” In response to Hungarian Prime
Minister Viktor Orban’s accusation that Soros was one of the movers behind the
hordes of migrants crossing European borders, Soros sent an email:
Mr.
Soros has now issued an email statement to Bloomberg Business, claiming
his foundations help “uphold European values”, while Mr. Oban’s actions in
strengthening the Hungarian border and stopping a huge migrant influx
“undermine those values.”
“His
plan treats the protection of national borders as the objective and the
refugees as an obstacle,” Mr. Soros added. “Our plan treats the protection of
refugees as the objective and national borders as the obstacle.”
Yes, national borders are obstacles. Aside from
helping define the character of a nation, they also serve the same purpose as
fences, doors, windows, and locks, which help to frustrate trespassers,
burglars, home invaders, and other predators. It is a nation’s
identity
that Soros wants to erase.
In 2006, FrontPage
interviewed Richard Poe, the co-author of The
Shadow Party:
How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals
Seized Control of the Democratic Party
. Among other things, Poe said:
The
Shadow Party is always changing.  New groups form and old ones dissolve.
For instance, America Coming Together — which raised $135 million for Democrat
get-out-the-vote drives in 2004 – has been mothballed, at least for now. 
The most active Shadow Party groups today are probably the Center for American
Progress, America Votes, Democracy Alliance, the New Democrat Network, the New
Politics Institute, ACORN and, of course, MoveOn.org.
In
his new book The Age of Fallibility,
Soros writes, “The main obstacle to a
stable and just world order is the United States
.”  He announced in 2003 that it is
necessary to “puncture the bubble of American supremacy.”  Soros is
working systematically to achieve that goal. (Italics mine)
So is Obama. Is this why Soros backed Obama’s run
for the presidency? He certainly placed the right bet. But did Soros also see Obama
as an ideal Islamic Candidate as long ago as 2007? Doubtless. Soros’s role in
the mass invasion of Europe didn’t show until there was resistance to his “open
society
/open borders” notion began to manifest itself, especially in
Eastern Europe.
As Pamela Geller reports in her October Atlas
Shrugs article, “World
Leader SLAMS George Soros for promoting, funding ‘migrant’ invasion
”:
His
tentacles are everywhere. Muslim migrants arriving in Europe are given a
‘migrants handbook’ packed with tips, maps, phone numbers and advice about
getting across Europe. The “rough guide” contains phone numbers of organizations
which might help refugees. The ‘rough guide’ is written in Arabic and contains
phone numbers of organizations which will help refugees making the journey,
such as the Red Cross and UNHCR. The “Rough Guide”, being printed and
distributed by the Soros “Open Society”
group “W2eu” or “Welcome to the
EU”, Foundations, has activists handing out these guides for free in Turkey.
And
how can one account for all the cell phones, tennis shoes, clothing, backpacks,
and other personal items carried by the thousands of healthy male “refugees”
posing as impoverished Syrians fleeing the chaos of the Syrian civil war, or from
Libya, Somalia, and the Balkans? Too likely these were also distributed free by
Soros through Open Society or some other NGO he controls.
In
conclusion, I would mark Barack Obama as every Islamic collectivist’s perfect
candidate to help advance Islam in the West and around the world. That may or may
not be Soros’s religious cup of tea, but I don’t think it would make any difference
to him who or what dissolves the West in the name of whatever fantasy world he
imagines the world ought to be. That is the nature of the poisonous, maleficent
ball of glop that is Soros’s “soul,” which only a Fyodor Dostoyevsky would have the fortitude to examine in
depth.
And,
because so much of Obama’s past is either closed to
scrutiny
(e.g., his not releasing much information about his academic
career) or off limits to any kind of “shovel-ready” investigating reporting.
Only
Obama knows for sure whether or not he is “The Islamic Candidate.” And his
actions, speeches, and policies over the last seven years are certainly not
calculated to discourage the idea.

Previous

Institutionalized Ignorance of Islam

Next

“The Absence of Facts” in the War on Terror

5 Comments

  1. Edward Cline

    The split photograph of Obama speaking to a group of wealthy idiots was copied directly from the New York Magazine article cited in the column. That's how it appeared in the magazine.

  2. Unknown

    I don't think Obama is a Muslim. When have you ever heard a Muslim supporting same sex marriage? I think he's just a typical leftist who thinks that America is too Christian and too white. So with Muslims you get a two for one.

    If Obama wanted merely to help the Syrians then the US could support 5 families in a Turkish refugee camp for every one Syrian family we bring in. Likewise, if Merkel wanted to help poor people, why not encourage the mass migration of Spaniards into Germany. The youth unemployment rate is over 25%

  3. Edward Cline

    Steve Jackson: I don't claim that Obama is a Muslim in the piece. But his antecedents are pretty murky, and his presidential, pro-Islam behavior (and his early life in Indonesia) don't, as I point out, discourage speculation about what he is. One could counter by saying, "Look, he attended Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church in Chicago for twenty years! He couldn't be a Muslim!" But my point is that one needn't be a Muslim to be an "Islamic Candidate." There are so many non-Muslim dunderheads who could just as well have met that designation, e.g., Kerry, McCain, etc. But Obama was cultivated and pushed onto the stage chiefly because he's black and an Alinsky man. I don't think you and I will live long enough to learn the truth about Obama, if it ever comes out.

  4. Unknown

    I think Obama probably moved to Chicago and joined Wright's church in order to advance his political life. After Wright was exposed as a leftist anti-American, Obama stopped attending his or any other church.

    I think many Leftists are pro-Islam. For example, the shooters at Virginia Tech and the Oregon community college posted pro-Islamic stuff although they may not have been Muslims. If you want to be anti-American, what is the most anti-West movement you can find?

  5. Unknown

    O is a completely vile traitor. He ranks right up there with Lenin, Hitler, Castro, Mao, et al. What a disaster. He need not be a moslem or Soros plant to promote the same vile policies that such plants would seek. Who can say for sure the name (names) of the puppet master(s) though it is safe to say one (many) exist. O had a meteoric rise that could not have happened without pre-planning.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén