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.