John R. Houk
© March 8, 2009
The term "Islamic Supremacism" is an ideology that pervades Mohammedanism. Islamic Supremacism is overtly acted upon by radical Islamic transnational terrorists. Islamic Supremacy is covertly and/or unconsciously practiced by non-radical Mohammedanism as a paradigm of thought ingrained on all levels of the Mohammedan intellect.
The problem for America is the Obama Administration (and somewhat the Bush Administration) goal of dialoguing with the radical Mohammedan Islamic Supremacists does not understand that negotiation is seen from an entirely different paradigm by Islamic Supremacists.
With this understanding in mind you have to read “Denial on Islamic supremacism.” Jeffrey Imm writes about the huge mistake the Obama Administration is pursuing with radical Mohammedanism with Western concepts of diplomacy and dialogue.
JRH 3/8/09
***************************************
Denial on Islamic supremacism
Leader in Group Seeking "Engagement" with
Islamic Supremacism to Advise State Dept
By Jeffrey Imm
March 7, 2009
American Ideological Society
The appointment of Dennis B. Ross as a U.S. State Department advisor is yet another reason why the American public must demand that its government leaders wake up to the ideological threat of Islamic supremacism to equality and liberty around the world.
On Monday night, February 23, the State Department quietly issued a press release that Dennis Ross would begin serving as "Special Advisor to the Secretary of State for The Gulf and Southwest Asia," addressing "political-military challenges that flow from the area and have an impact outside of the Gulf and Southwest Asia." The New York Times reports that Mr. Ross will report directly to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and various media reports have speculated that Mr. Ross' primary role will be to focus on U.S. foreign policy issues regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran. Mr. Ross was a foreign policy advisor to Barack Obama's campaign on middle east issues. The Jerusalem Post reported that, during the campaign, Mr. Ross called for "Rallying the international community to tighten sanctions and then offering incentives to have the Islamic Republic stand down from its suspected nuclear weapons program." Regardless of such geopolitical tactical news, the larger issue is Mr. Ross' positions regarding Islamic supremacism and its adherents.
What hasn't been reported yet has been Mr. Ross' involvement in the U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project, that I first addressed five months ago, and how his involvement demonstrates a dangerous degrading of those in the executive branch committed to equality and liberty. The U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project, which included the leader of unindicted co-conspirator organization ISNA and a former national director of MPAC, also listed Dennis Ross as part of the "leadership group" that provided a report offering recommendations to the U.S. government, entitled "Changing Course: A New Direction for U.S. Relations with the Muslim World." Mr. Ross is listed on page xi of the report as part of the group that developed this report.
The report that Mr. Ross contributed to as part of the U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project leadership group calls for engagement with Iran, engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood, seeks the U.S. to assess engaging with "political representatives of armed and activist movement," rejects the existence of American concerns about "Islamism," calls for America to support political groups that support Sharia, promotes the Islamic supremacist OIC organization that supports the Cairo Declaration against equality and liberty, and seeks America to reassess its position on the Islamic supremacist terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah.
Does Mr. Ross' appointment indicate that these are acceptable positions in the federal government today?
U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project report on Iran:
--- Engagement with the Islamic supremacist nation of Iran (page 4) is necessary "to explore the potential for agreements that could increase regional security"
--- Believes that "[t]he strongest source of U.S. leverage with Hamas may be a U.S. dialogue with Iran, discussed earlier, that could lead to a reduction in Iranian support for Hamas' military operations." (page 44)
--- Calls for America to get Iran involved "in stabilizing Afghanistan" (page 48)
U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project report on Muslim Brotherhood:
-- "The U.S. must also consider when and how to talk with political movements that have substantial public support and have renounced violence, but are outlawed or restricted by authoritarian governments allied to the U.S. The Muslim Brotherhood parties in Egypt and Jordan are arguably in this category." (page 60 and 61)
-- if America doesn't "work with" "Islamist parties, notably the Muslim Brotherhood," then the U.S. is not serious about political reform (page 54)
-- the "moderate" Muslim Brotherhood and "Islamist political parties" should be encouraged by America (page 56)
U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project report calls for U.S. to assess "engagement with political representatives of armed and activist movements"
-- Recommends that the United States "[a]ssess the value of engagement with political representatives of armed and activist movements case-by-case, based on their principles, behavior, and level of public support" (page 59)
-- Group complains that U.S. has failed to engage with terrorist groups Hezbollah and Hamas, calling them "illegitimate," "when political openings allowed militant movements..." "to gain popular support through elections" (pages 52, 53, 54)
-- "the Group has reached consensus on a set of criteria that the U.S. can use to judge whether, when, and how to engage in dialogue with armed political groups and movements: Does the group or movement have a substantial base of legitimate public support, demonstrated by membership, electoral success, and/or mass mobilization?" (pages 59, 60)
U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project report says Americans not concerned about "Islamism"
-- regarding the concerns of "most Americans"... "They are not deeply concerned about 'Islamist' parties coming to power, as long as those parties do not advocate violence and do respect basic human rights." (page 51)
-- By using the term "Islamist," rather than "Islamic supremacist," the group misuses the term "Islamist" to obfuscate about such a supremacist ideology; the 9/11 Commission report called "Islamism" - "an Islamic militant, anti-democratic movement, bearing a holistic vision of Islam whose final aim is the restoration of the caliphate," while this group then pretends that "Islamists" respect "basic human rights."
-- Can you imagine anyone in American federal government agreeing to such an absurd comment about white supremacist political parties or Aryan supremacist Nazi political parties?
U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project report promotes the Islamic supremacist Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)
-- the report calls for "Reapplication of Islamic Principles to Meet the Challenges of the 21st century" (page 53)
-- the report promotes the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and its website, a group that has consistently sought to promote Islamic supremacism and silence any challenge of such supremacism (page 53)
-- the OIC's 2005 Mecca Declaration calls for promotion of "human rights" based exclusively on Islamic supremacist Sharia law, in accordance with the so-called "Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam," which denies the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty - except as defined by Islamic supremacists; the OIC's 2005 Mecca Declaration also seeks to implement it in all OIC member nations, and it seeks "deterrent punishments" for those engaged in "Islamophobia"
Certainly, Mr. Ross could have chosen to disagree with any of these positions. Moreover, he also has had numerous opportunities since September 2008 to either denounce such positions or to distance himself from the U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project. He has chosen to do none of these, and he is still listed as part of the U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project leadership today. His name remains on their report calling for engagement with Islamic supremacists.
The idea that an individual who has been part of a "leadership group" with an organization that calls for engagement with Islamic supremacist groups as the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Islamic supremacist nation of Iran, demonstrates how little the current government leadership appreciates the threat to equality and liberty that Islamic supremacism poses to the world.
The root of this problem comes from those in denial on Islamic supremacism choosing a "let's make a deal" attitude towards equality and liberty, when faced with supremacist ideologies.
Can you imagine American federal government leaders seeking engagement with "political" white supremacist groups in the 1960s and 1970s? Can you imagine American federal government leaders seeking engagement with "political" Aryan supremacist Nazi groups in the 1930s and 1940s? Yet there is not outrage, not even a press report, to acknowledge when someone is appointed to America's federal government leadership with a documented support in seeking engagement with Islamic supremacism.
Equality and liberty are not merely pawns to be used in a geopolitical chess match, nor are they just human rights of convenience that American government leaders can support when the mood suits them. Those in the amoral cliques of foreign policy tradecraft would laugh at such an "ideological" view (and they do), as they continue to promote a "realpolitik" view towards Islamic supremacism that is neither realistic nor American.
Now more than ever, when facing the global threat of Islamic supremacism, America needs to never forget who and what we are - our declaration in supporting the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty, and our dedication to the ideal that "all men and women are created equal" that define our nation and our society.
Those who believe that such inalienable human rights are not the priority of American government, and who view such human rights as expendable in "engaging" with Islamic supremacist groups and nations, have no right serving as representatives of America to us or to the world. We must continue to challenge this growth of appeasement towards Islamic supremacism. We must demand that our government is responsible for equality and liberty.
Unlike those who would sell out America's commitment to such inalienable human rights...
We Fear No Evil.
Leader in Group Seeking "Engagement" with Islamic Supremacism to Advise State Dept / Culture Wars
______________________________
Obama Diplomacy and Islamic Supremacism
John R. Houk
© March87, 2009
___________________________________
Denial on Islamic supremacism
Copyright 2007-2009 American Ideological Society
© March 8, 2009
The term "Islamic Supremacism" is an ideology that pervades Mohammedanism. Islamic Supremacism is overtly acted upon by radical Islamic transnational terrorists. Islamic Supremacy is covertly and/or unconsciously practiced by non-radical Mohammedanism as a paradigm of thought ingrained on all levels of the Mohammedan intellect.
The problem for America is the Obama Administration (and somewhat the Bush Administration) goal of dialoguing with the radical Mohammedan Islamic Supremacists does not understand that negotiation is seen from an entirely different paradigm by Islamic Supremacists.
Islamic supremacism is an identity-based supremacist ideology that seeks to establish the superiority of Islam to control all of humanity, in the United States and around the world. Islamic supremacism rejects the inalienable human rights of individual equality and liberty and seeks to perpetuate the lie that its exclusionary ideology is superior to equality and liberty. Islamic supremacism promotes a segregationist Sharia legal system which seeks to control the behavior of every human being. Islamic supremacism is an activist, transnational ideology that seeks the transformation or assimilation of every human being, with ultimate goal to establish a global Islamic caliphate to govern Earth. Islamic supremacism may provide the ideological basis for Jihadist terrorism, but its adherents seek to attack and undermine equality and liberty using many other tactics besides Jihadist terrorism. The fact that Islamic supremacists may have different factions, such as the Wahhabist (Sunni) or Khumeinist (Shiite) supremacists, changes nothing in terms of the ultimate threat of such anti-freedom ideologues; the overall threat of Islamic supremacism itself — in all of its forms and tactics must be acknowledged and confronted by America. – Jeffrey Imm on United Against Islamic Supremacism blog
With this understanding in mind you have to read “Denial on Islamic supremacism.” Jeffrey Imm writes about the huge mistake the Obama Administration is pursuing with radical Mohammedanism with Western concepts of diplomacy and dialogue.
JRH 3/8/09
***************************************
Denial on Islamic supremacism
"The idea that... [Dennis B. Ross] who has been part of a "leadership group" with an organization that calls for engagement with Islamic supremacist groups as the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Islamic supremacist nation of Iran, demonstrates how little the current government leadership appreciates the threat to equality and liberty that Islamic supremacism poses to the world."
Leader in Group Seeking "Engagement" with
Islamic Supremacism to Advise State Dept
By Jeffrey Imm
March 7, 2009
American Ideological Society
The appointment of Dennis B. Ross as a U.S. State Department advisor is yet another reason why the American public must demand that its government leaders wake up to the ideological threat of Islamic supremacism to equality and liberty around the world.
On Monday night, February 23, the State Department quietly issued a press release that Dennis Ross would begin serving as "Special Advisor to the Secretary of State for The Gulf and Southwest Asia," addressing "political-military challenges that flow from the area and have an impact outside of the Gulf and Southwest Asia." The New York Times reports that Mr. Ross will report directly to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and various media reports have speculated that Mr. Ross' primary role will be to focus on U.S. foreign policy issues regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran. Mr. Ross was a foreign policy advisor to Barack Obama's campaign on middle east issues. The Jerusalem Post reported that, during the campaign, Mr. Ross called for "Rallying the international community to tighten sanctions and then offering incentives to have the Islamic Republic stand down from its suspected nuclear weapons program." Regardless of such geopolitical tactical news, the larger issue is Mr. Ross' positions regarding Islamic supremacism and its adherents.
What hasn't been reported yet has been Mr. Ross' involvement in the U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project, that I first addressed five months ago, and how his involvement demonstrates a dangerous degrading of those in the executive branch committed to equality and liberty. The U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project, which included the leader of unindicted co-conspirator organization ISNA and a former national director of MPAC, also listed Dennis Ross as part of the "leadership group" that provided a report offering recommendations to the U.S. government, entitled "Changing Course: A New Direction for U.S. Relations with the Muslim World." Mr. Ross is listed on page xi of the report as part of the group that developed this report.
The report that Mr. Ross contributed to as part of the U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project leadership group calls for engagement with Iran, engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood, seeks the U.S. to assess engaging with "political representatives of armed and activist movement," rejects the existence of American concerns about "Islamism," calls for America to support political groups that support Sharia, promotes the Islamic supremacist OIC organization that supports the Cairo Declaration against equality and liberty, and seeks America to reassess its position on the Islamic supremacist terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah.
Does Mr. Ross' appointment indicate that these are acceptable positions in the federal government today?
U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project report on Iran:
--- Engagement with the Islamic supremacist nation of Iran (page 4) is necessary "to explore the potential for agreements that could increase regional security"
--- Believes that "[t]he strongest source of U.S. leverage with Hamas may be a U.S. dialogue with Iran, discussed earlier, that could lead to a reduction in Iranian support for Hamas' military operations." (page 44)
--- Calls for America to get Iran involved "in stabilizing Afghanistan" (page 48)
U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project report on Muslim Brotherhood:
-- "The U.S. must also consider when and how to talk with political movements that have substantial public support and have renounced violence, but are outlawed or restricted by authoritarian governments allied to the U.S. The Muslim Brotherhood parties in Egypt and Jordan are arguably in this category." (page 60 and 61)
-- if America doesn't "work with" "Islamist parties, notably the Muslim Brotherhood," then the U.S. is not serious about political reform (page 54)
-- the "moderate" Muslim Brotherhood and "Islamist political parties" should be encouraged by America (page 56)
U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project report calls for U.S. to assess "engagement with political representatives of armed and activist movements"
-- Recommends that the United States "[a]ssess the value of engagement with political representatives of armed and activist movements case-by-case, based on their principles, behavior, and level of public support" (page 59)
-- Group complains that U.S. has failed to engage with terrorist groups Hezbollah and Hamas, calling them "illegitimate," "when political openings allowed militant movements..." "to gain popular support through elections" (pages 52, 53, 54)
-- "the Group has reached consensus on a set of criteria that the U.S. can use to judge whether, when, and how to engage in dialogue with armed political groups and movements: Does the group or movement have a substantial base of legitimate public support, demonstrated by membership, electoral success, and/or mass mobilization?" (pages 59, 60)
U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project report says Americans not concerned about "Islamism"
-- regarding the concerns of "most Americans"... "They are not deeply concerned about 'Islamist' parties coming to power, as long as those parties do not advocate violence and do respect basic human rights." (page 51)
-- By using the term "Islamist," rather than "Islamic supremacist," the group misuses the term "Islamist" to obfuscate about such a supremacist ideology; the 9/11 Commission report called "Islamism" - "an Islamic militant, anti-democratic movement, bearing a holistic vision of Islam whose final aim is the restoration of the caliphate," while this group then pretends that "Islamists" respect "basic human rights."
-- Can you imagine anyone in American federal government agreeing to such an absurd comment about white supremacist political parties or Aryan supremacist Nazi political parties?
U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project report promotes the Islamic supremacist Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)
-- the report calls for "Reapplication of Islamic Principles to Meet the Challenges of the 21st century" (page 53)
-- the report promotes the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and its website, a group that has consistently sought to promote Islamic supremacism and silence any challenge of such supremacism (page 53)
-- the OIC's 2005 Mecca Declaration calls for promotion of "human rights" based exclusively on Islamic supremacist Sharia law, in accordance with the so-called "Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam," which denies the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty - except as defined by Islamic supremacists; the OIC's 2005 Mecca Declaration also seeks to implement it in all OIC member nations, and it seeks "deterrent punishments" for those engaged in "Islamophobia"
Certainly, Mr. Ross could have chosen to disagree with any of these positions. Moreover, he also has had numerous opportunities since September 2008 to either denounce such positions or to distance himself from the U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project. He has chosen to do none of these, and he is still listed as part of the U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project leadership today. His name remains on their report calling for engagement with Islamic supremacists.
The idea that an individual who has been part of a "leadership group" with an organization that calls for engagement with Islamic supremacist groups as the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Islamic supremacist nation of Iran, demonstrates how little the current government leadership appreciates the threat to equality and liberty that Islamic supremacism poses to the world.
The root of this problem comes from those in denial on Islamic supremacism choosing a "let's make a deal" attitude towards equality and liberty, when faced with supremacist ideologies.
Can you imagine American federal government leaders seeking engagement with "political" white supremacist groups in the 1960s and 1970s? Can you imagine American federal government leaders seeking engagement with "political" Aryan supremacist Nazi groups in the 1930s and 1940s? Yet there is not outrage, not even a press report, to acknowledge when someone is appointed to America's federal government leadership with a documented support in seeking engagement with Islamic supremacism.
Equality and liberty are not merely pawns to be used in a geopolitical chess match, nor are they just human rights of convenience that American government leaders can support when the mood suits them. Those in the amoral cliques of foreign policy tradecraft would laugh at such an "ideological" view (and they do), as they continue to promote a "realpolitik" view towards Islamic supremacism that is neither realistic nor American.
Now more than ever, when facing the global threat of Islamic supremacism, America needs to never forget who and what we are - our declaration in supporting the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty, and our dedication to the ideal that "all men and women are created equal" that define our nation and our society.
Those who believe that such inalienable human rights are not the priority of American government, and who view such human rights as expendable in "engaging" with Islamic supremacist groups and nations, have no right serving as representatives of America to us or to the world. We must continue to challenge this growth of appeasement towards Islamic supremacism. We must demand that our government is responsible for equality and liberty.
Unlike those who would sell out America's commitment to such inalienable human rights...
We Fear No Evil.
Leader in Group Seeking "Engagement" with Islamic Supremacism to Advise State Dept / Culture Wars
______________________________
Obama Diplomacy and Islamic Supremacism
John R. Houk
© March87, 2009
___________________________________
Denial on Islamic supremacism
Copyright 2007-2009 American Ideological Society
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment