The one thing I appreciate about Islamists is that they don’t try to rewrite their history and they tell you exactly what they believe.
Case in point: as reported by the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT), Obama Homeland Security adviser, Mohamed Elibiary, generated controversy last fall when he wrote that the U.S. Constitution was “Islamically compliant.” He returned to the top last Saturday morning with a Twitter post: “…I said America was an Islamic country, not a Muslim country. Pls study up on the difference b4 attacking me.” Last we checked, that post appeared to have been deleted from Elibiary’s Twitter feed.
IPT wrote to him asking for clarification, but Elibiary declined to explain. They found the tweets puzzling, considering there were only 2.6 million Muslims in the U.S. as of 2010, which represents less than .2 percent of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims.
It’s not puzzling to me because this is how it happens, with simple statements made to test the waters. I hate to disagree with this fella but he fails to understand that America is a Constitutional Republic.
And how he comes up with the conclusion that our U.S. Constitution is “Islamically compliant” is beyond comprehension — considering Islamic law is rooted in the practice called Sharia rooted in the Koran. That is clearly a violation of our establishment of religion clause – but it’s funny — I don’t hear liberal progressives chiming in about separation of church and state on that one.
A source close to Elibiary told IPT, however, that the Homeland Security adviser meant to say he feels there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution and the American system that runs contrary to Islam. Really?
This ladies and gentlemen is how it begins. Islamists infiltrate our governing systems and deceive us with lies, making us believe there is no true delineation in our fundamental beliefs.
And it is not just that Islamists, like Mohamed Elibiary, seek to minimize the meaning of our Constitution — they also seek to hijack the Black Civil Rights movement. Elibiary also compared criticism of Islamism, or political Islam, with “segregation era standards,” and invoked the memory of the “separate & unequal doctrine” that marked that era. Gee, that sounds familier. It’s the same tactic used by the radical gay rights movement. I’m not aware that “Muslim” is a race.
Elibiary also predicted that conservatives would evolve on the foreign policy front to accept a “Muslim majority world.” Hate to tell him but that dog don’t hunt. It’s quite disturbing that the statement infers Elibiary is accepting of the ISIS army and its goal to establish an Islamic caliphate.
What I find disturbing by not surprising is this man is allowed to have a position in the most important domestic security government agency, our Department of Homeland Security. Is there any doubt as to what Mr. Mohamed Elibiary is advising?
So I ask once again: on whose side is Barack Hussein Obama and his administration?