White House To Liberal-Minded Muslims

Drop dead:

Administration officials declined to explain why they have not reached out to groups of liberal-minded Muslims. “Federal Departments and Agencies engage with a wide variety of Muslim organizations and groups throughout the country, often through open forums and meetings and we have also consulted a wide variety of academics and researchers about the views of Muslims in America,” according to a March 8 statement from White House spokesman Nicholas Shapiro.

Among the Muslim groups with the greatest access to the White House are MPAC, based in Los Angeles, and the Islamic Society of North America, based in Plainfield, Ind. MPAC is an advocacy group with few members, and ISNA is a umbrella group for many groups and mosques that practice orthodox Islam, which mandates the subordination of democratic governments to Islamic rules.

Leftists like to fly the false flag of “liberal,” but they’re really not.

[Update a while later]

How today’s “liberals” betray yesterday’s.

2 thoughts on “White House To Liberal-Minded Muslims”

  1. Is this simply a pattern similar to what we see in the WH “stimulus” strategy? In that, we saw that the States that were almost certainly Democrat in 2012 got fewer dollars, as well as those that were certainly Republican. However, the States that will be “battleground” states in 2012 got a much larger than average number of dollars per voter.

    The “liberal-minded” Muslims, in this strategy, may seem to the WH to have nowhere else to go. It is all too possible the WH believes its own propaganda about Tea Party/Republican racism against ME and Moslem people. IMHO, it is massively false, even with a few outliers that rant about Islam itself. However, the groups that the WH cozies up to that *do* have Islamist attitudes just might be seen as conduits to a movement that, in the WH view, *must* eventually be negotiated with.

    Why? First, if such negotiations are impossible, then the entire future model of international world-wide politics that the WH and so many in the State Department subscribe to is shot down in flames. That would mean we have people in the world you *cannot* placate or co-opt by negotiations, ultimately. It means a complete return to the Democratization Strategy of the last administration would be their only alternative. Of course, the last administration accepted many of these same groups into the WH conferences as well. What they did not do was make them the future centerpiece of the national strategy in WW IV. (Yes, I know that upper level careerists of the US State Department deeply undercut that strategy and got it toned down steeply after 2004, but by then the die was cast.)

    One hopeful note is that *if* the current unrest in the ME *does* produce some representative governments that refuse to yield their powers to Sharia imams, then we may get that Democratization Strategy working *in*spite* of WH abandonment of it. Indeed, the current shifts in WH policies on Libya may be the first indications that there will be defacto recognition of this, even if the debt to the previous administration is never acknowledged.

    We must wait upon events.

  2. Waiting on events isn’t a choice. Events will happen.

    Obama has been very consistent in who he chooses to cozy up with and support. It’s the elephant in the room. The only good thing is he’s awakened a lot of people that wouldn’t otherwise take much notice.

Comments are closed.