Wake-up Call: Islamists Insert Themselves into Healthcare Debate
Sometimes, under the right light, the least obvious can become the most revealing. With all the national attention to health care policy, as if there were not enough organizations weighing in on the health care debate, recently the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) sent out a position statement admonishing the American public and their Muslim members that the, “Health care debate impeded by intimidation and the politics of fear.”
What is remarkable and at issue here, is certainly not the right of MPAC’s leadership to have a personal opinion on health care policy. But what is most telling is how these Islamist organizations have a way of finding a way to worm themselves and their Islamization agenda into every political issue related to government under the name of Islam and Muslims. As is typical of Islamists, they exploit Muslim faith based organizations and their often unsuspecting supporters and members for their own very specific domestic and foreign policy agenda of the day. This agenda clearly and malignantly crosses the line of mosque and state in an aim to impose the Islamization of every topic related to the domain of government and public policy upon the Muslim community and ultimately the greater American community.
Does this ring a bell? It’s the modus operandi of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). They are a well known political party in
When it comes to domestic policy stances, one can usually pick out MB politics from a mile away. On economic issues, the Islamist (MB) platform is heavily socialist based in government entitlement programs. They thus will see common cause on economic issues with the left in the
Thus, while members of the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan) front groups in the
Today, our country continues to face the steady threat of radical Islam. Just in the past few months we have seen jihadists arrested in
Islamist groups will eventually always reveal their true colors and find a way to get their Islamist platform advanced whether or not some or even only a few Muslims actually agree with them. The Islamist political universe simply revolves around an Islamization agenda-- full stop. They seek to collectivize all Muslims under the banner of Islam for every topic. The recent MPAC missive on health care was probably ignored by most, but it could not be more revealing about the real agenda of MPAC and its fellow Muslim brethren. Here is an excerpt from their demagogic commentary on health care sent under the title of “Heath care debate impeded by intimidation and the politics of fear”:
One of the Obama administration
's goals is to provide some type of public option healthcare insurance to all Americans as well as implement prohibitions for insurers that withhold coverage from people based on pre-existing conditions. In contrast, Republicans fear that the Obama administration 's healthcare plan will be costly and would lower quality of care. Furthermore, they fear that employers would opt for the government-sponsored healthcare rather than private insurance companies, which would automatically undercut the industry. An elementary analysis of the current public discourse on healthcare illustrates a lack of substantive discussion on the topic even at a basic level as described above. The current upheaval, which is being exacerbated through the use of verbal manipulation as well as intimidation, has imposed a negative veil over an endeavor that is intended to fix our broken healthcare system.
Congressional town hall meetings have historically been a forum for discourse and information sharing and have served as a place for civil discourse between elected officials and their constituents. Recently, these forums have turned into mob style melees where blatantly false accusations and fear inducing tactics have been used to attempt to coerce elected officials. Comparing public officials to Nazis, brandishing firearms at presidential town halls, and scaring seniors into believing that "death-panels" are part of a real plan is not discourse that is beneficial for Americans.
Set aside how familiar this may sound to certain political pundits with regards to the health care issue in the
What they fail to realize, is not only are they crossing the line of mosque and state, but they are alienating a large segment of the Muslim community who are not looking to our faith-based organizations to weigh in on issues like health care policy. Thus, MPAC, for example, now ends up only representing those Muslims who agree with HR 3200, or only those Muslims who want the public option, or only those Muslims who believe that health care should be reformed through further reaching oppressive government programs and entitlements. MPAC thus does not and never could represent Muslims who believe in free markets and liberalization of the health care insurance and provider market. This is not the place for a debate on health care, but suffice it to say that this window into the mindset of MPAC leadership should be a wake-up call to government leadership, homeland security, and media who view MPAC as a religious organization that speaks for all Muslims and separates mosque and state. They in fact do no such thing. They are a part of the same old agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood and are more akin to an Islamist lobby. They demagogue issues like health care whenever they can to advance the ideas of Islamization and political Islam at the expense of the Muslim community - - not to our benefit.
There are many venues in
Make no mistake, many of us are very involved in the health care debate. As a recent President of the Arizona Medical Association, I have been very personally involved in this debate in
Islamists through their perversion of the Establishment clause and in their glory of ultimately striving to impose their interpretation of shar’iah use their Muslim collectivist groups to advocate for every political platform. Health care is just one more example of how MPAC and other Islamist groups weighing in on issues which seem as innocuous as health care truly reveal their Islamist colors and long term agenda in America.
Comment on this item
by Alan M. Dershowitz
by Khaled Abu Toameh
There is growing concern in Ramallah, Cairo, Riyadh and Dubai that the U.S. Administration is working to prevent the collapse of Hamas.
"The Americans mistakenly think that moderate political Islam, which is represented by the Muslim Brotherhood, will be able to combat radical Islam. The Americans are trying to bring the Muslim Brotherhood back to the region." — Palestinian official, Ramallah.
The Iranians, with whom the U.S. is now negotiating on nuclear weapons -- amid fears in the Middle East that the U.S. will capitulate to Tehran's demands if it has not effectively capitulated to them already -- have now joined Qatar and Turkey in opposing any attempt to confiscate Hamas's weapons.
The Paris conference was actually a spit in the face to the anti-Hamas forces in the Arab world. By failing to invite the Palestinian Authority to the conference, Kerry indicated that he does not see any role for Abbas and his loyalists in a post-Hamas Gaza Strip.
by Amir Taheri
According to Küntzel, German leaders have at least two other reasons for helping Iran defy the United States. The first is German resentment of defeat in the Second World War followed by foreign occupation, led by the US. The second reason is that Iran is one of the few, if not the only country, where Germans have never been looked at as "war criminals" because of Hitler.
by Malcolm Lowe
Go to Nazareth and you can easily find the mini-mosque. It displays a large poster of Koran quotations denigrating Christianity and urging Christians to convert to Islam.
Overlooked is a fundamental difference between the two regimes. Israel is a state governed by the rule of law. The Palestinian Authority, like most other states in the region, is a personal dictatorship. Arafat started the fashion of simply disregarding the laws.
What is needed in Israel is a central policy unit with the brief of developing long-term policies both to integrate Israeli Christians and to engage with the great variety of Christians in foreign countries.
by Peter Huessy
The Washington Post's Glenn Kessler not only invents points the Cheneys did not make, he then casually dismisses "uncomfortable points" they did make. How many Pinocchios is that worth?
Kessler evidently assumes that when intelligence assessments differ, the correct version is only that which differs from the points made by the Cheneys but not by their critics.
Most senior Democratic members of the Senate at the time voted -- twice -- for giving the President the authority to take down Saddam Hussein. How else can Democrats say they made a mistake voting for the war if they cannot now make the case that they were "fooled"?
The U.S. took down Saddam Hussein's regime because on balance the threat-intelligence could not be ignored.