Defy Islamic Supremacism
Posted by huntingnasrallah on November 15, 2008
8 Questions with Jeffrey Imm
1. Gary H. Johnson, Jr.: What are the top three hotspots of Jihadism the Western public should pay attention to in the coming Obama Administration?
The most important thing to remember in the ongoing challenge of Jihad and Islamic supremacism is that this is absolutely not a partisan issue. Moreover, the challenge is much more than the threat of Jihadist tactics by such Islamic supremacist ideologues; the real challenge is the war of ideas between Islamic supremacism versus equality and liberty.
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.
First, we know that Obama’s Middle East foreign policy adviser Dennis Ross was part of the leadership group of the U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project, along with the president of the unindicted co-conspirator group ISNA, Ingrid Mattson. The singular fact that Dennis Ross had no problem working with Ingrid Mattson in this group speaks volumes alone. The U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project released a report in September 2008 titled “Changing Course: A New Direction for U.S. Relations with the Muslim World” that I summarized key sections from at Anti-Jihad.org. This report basically calls for political engagement with the Islamic supremacist Muslim Brotherhood, and calls for negotiations with Hamas and Hezbollah. I expect to see much of the U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project report being pushed in the Obama administration, although I would ask that administration to reconsider taking such a wrong-headed approach.
Secondly, on November 11, 2008, media reports cited the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper that Obama advisers were in touch with the Hamas organization, according to Hamas political adviser Ahmed Yousef (who has written editorials for the Washington Post and the New York Times promoting Hamas). Obama adviser Denis McDonough told the Jerusalem Post that such claims were false. But the support of Obama adviser Dennis Ross for negotiations with Hamas (as part of the U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project) and other Islamic supremacist groups, the meetings with Hamas by former Obama adviser Rob Malley, the role of Obama’s church in promoting Hamas propaganda, as well as actions by other senior Democratic politicians such as Jimmy Carter’s direct negotiations with Hamas is going to keep this an open issue. There is this history that unfortunately suggests that the Obama administration is not going to be tough on Hamas. I hope that I am wrong about this, but this is likely to be part of a growing effort and delusion among many foreign policy analysts that they can “engage” with Islamic supremacist organizations as part of an effort to move Islamic supremacist tactics from violence to “politics.” Engagement with Islamic supremacists now is just as morally wrong as engagement with white supremacists would have been in the 1960s for all of the same reasons. By the 1960s, America learned from its 100-year history in fighting white supremacism that getting supremacists to change tactics alone does not improve security, and without confronting the supremacist ideology itself there is no real change at all.
Third, on November 10, 2008, the Washington Post reported that “Obama national security advisers” state that the Obama administration will support efforts at “reconciliation” with the Islamic supremacist Taliban, including negotiations with Iran on a regionalized effort at so-called “peace.” This is not surprising, as this is also the direction that Petraeus and Gates have been pushing as well, and it is entirely possible they may be kept in the new administration. More disturbing is that the Post report says that Obama advisers state that the challenges in Afghanistan are due to “ideological” constraints within the Bush administration. That would be laughable, if it wasn’t so tragically sad and its consequences so horrific to those who seek equality and liberty. The Post report about the Obama advisers provides the perfect storm of everything that is wrong about a tactical foreign policy that does not acknowledge Islamic supremacism. It shows the continued delusion that Islamic supremacists can be reconciled with at all, whether they are Sunni Taliban or Shiite Iranian Islamic supremacists. It shows the delusion that the global war on Islamic supremacism can be dealt with by “regionalizing” conflicts in certain areas, without confronting the global ideology. It also shows the delusion that self-styled experts in foreign policy believe that by playing Shiite Islamic supremacists versus Sunni Islamic supremacists that America can gain any meaningful foreign policy goals – when all that really happens is that American federal government provides increasing legitimacy to both sets of Islamic supremacists. In effect, if you wanted a laundry list of everything wrong that you could possibly do in addressing Islamic supremacism, the engagement/reconciliation/regionalization foreign policy approaches provide the guideline.
Without a U.S. federal government leadership position on Islamic supremacism, America’s credibility is a cork in the ocean of competing supremacist organizations jockeying for power in controlling our foreign policy, in undermining our economics, in undermining our law enforcement and homeland security, and in devaluing America’s role as a leader in defending equality and liberty.
U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project Calls for Engagement with Muslim Brotherhood
“Changing Course: A New Direction for U.S. Relations with the Muslim World”
Hamas’ Ahmad Yousuf: “We were in contact with a number of Obama’s aides through e-mail, and later met with them in Gaza”
—- ‘Obama’s advisers met with Hamas’
Ahmed Yousef writing for the Washington Post
Ahmed Yousef writing for the Washington Post
November 10, 2008 – Washington Post: Afghan war strategy to be more regional
2. Johnson: With the present level of public awareness, is it realistic to attempt to generate a political revolution in the West directed against Islamic Supremacism? What is necessary to guarantee the success of such a movement?
Yes, I believe it is both realistic and necessary. I don’t share the views of many who believe that America really has a huge educational problem when it comes to Jihad. Over the past 7 years, no other subject has been as widely written about, discussed, and debated. Untold hundreds of books have been written on the subject. In my view, the real problem is that we need a better focusing of the message, we need greater incentives for Americans to actually do something about it, and we need to better identify specific actions the public can perform to make a difference. I believe most Americans basically understand the problem, certainly not as clearly as we might like, given the vast misinformation campaign also going on, but I believe that the majority get it. It is unbelievable to conceive that 7 years after 9/11 most Americans still don’t understand the basic threat out there. But my experience is when you don’t give people something that they can do about a problem, they tend to ignore it.
First, in terms of focusing the message, I believe that there needs to be a clearer focus on Islamic supremacism as an ideology. What happens is that many individuals have associations with individual American Muslims and when someone tries to “educate” them on “radical Islam,” they respond, “hey I have a neighbor/friend/co-worker who is a Muslim and they aren’t terrorists.” That is where the failure to focus on the ideology of Islamic supremacism has been a mistake. Americans understand supremacism and they understand that those supporting supremacist ideologies can be either a majority or a minority, as seen by our struggles with both white supremacist and black supremacist groups. Americans know from their own history that fighting supremacism requires confrontation, not “engagement.” Americans know that challenging supremacists means you can’t simply wish it away or believe that is always just a “tiny minority” of individuals. Americans have also seen that confronting supremacism works. The election of Barack Obama is a perfect example of this in American politics. All Americans know that confrontation of supremacism works. We have seen it in our lives and our history. But the debate of Islamic supremacism versus equality and liberty is not the message that the American people are getting, we keep getting caught up in either too many details or side issues that take us off that fundamental message. We need to change that and be more disciplined in our message to America. This is not something that the majority of the American people don’t understand, they simply don’t have a consistent context of the problem.
Secondly, we need to wake up Americans to stop taking equality and liberty for granted. We need a campaign to ask Americans – “what would your life be without equality and liberty?”. This means political coalitions with other human rights groups, especially women’s rights groups that will highlight the problem. In America today, women are being murdered because of the Islamic supremacist ideology. This is not simply someone else’s problem in a foreign nation. This is our problem here and now. We also need to demonstrate how every time a U.S. federal government agency provides legitimacy to so-called “political” Islamic supremacist organizations, it results in the growth of Jihad as well.
Because of their busy lives, a number of people want to be given specifics as to what they can and should do. This is the real failure of the movement against Islamic supremacism thus far, and obviously, the failure of America’s political leadership. In addition, the American citizenry has to be challenged to sacrifice for their nation. Meaningful American governmental leadership and national calls for sacrifice are something that our nation has continued to lack. After 9/11, the first thing I sought to do was to to find a way to get an electric automobile. When GM refused to sell me one, I ended up owning a hybrid, and that is what I have driven ever since. Petrodollars fuel Jihadist terrorism. You didn’t have to have a degree in political science to figure this out. But when did our governmental leadership make this fight for energy independence against Islamic supremacists a priority to Americans in the past seven years? When did America’s businesses make our country a priority over the past seven years?
What America has lacked is the national inspiration and the national plan of action among its civilian population to confront Islamic supremacism. We can change this. We can find inspirational human rights figures in a coalition to rally the defense of equality and liberty. We can give the American people signs and placards to hold, marches to join, rallies to participate in, public debates and conferences to organize. We can ask our fellow Americans to talk to their neighbors, to go outside of their comfort zone, and to engage in a national campaign to defend equality and liberty from Islamic supremacism.
What we need to guarantee success in the long war against Islamic supremacism is that the American people make the fight for equality and liberty their first priority, not their last. What we need is the inspiration once again to remember that our nation was founded on the inalienable human right that “All Men Are Created Equal,” and that our founding fathers handed down the responsibility to defend that right to each and every one of us. I know that many in the anti-Jihad movement don’t believe that public events are going to work because “we don’t have the numbers.” I believe that we will never have “the numbers” until we stand up publicly and in the streets for equality and liberty.
Rosa Parks was one woman on the bus in 1955. Martin Luther King, Jr. started his public campaign for equality in 1955, and it wasn’t until 1963 that he led the March on Washington. To “get the numbers,” we need to put ourselves out there in public, on the line. We need to stand up and defy supremacism, one American at a time. We won’t do that just with another book, or with just another Internet web site. We need to stand in public against Islamic supremacism.
3. Johnson: How has the counterterrorism community in the West split over the issue of engagement with Islamism and what are the pitfalls of such a course?
The greatest single challenge in America today is the misguided “experts” who revel in their tactics of “tradecraft,” but fail to understand the basic principles of equality and liberty that are the foundations of the United States. Too many in the counterterrorism community and foreign policy are consumed by tactics, by political maneuvers, and they literally cannot see the holistic challenge. This is why, of course, they not should be consulted as “experts” on Islamic supremacism as an ideology. The only reason this happened is because many Americans were completely blind about Jihad prior to the 9/11 attacks, and in response the 9/11 attacks, the public leaned on the “expertise” of such tactical professionals. In retrospect, this was a giant mistake, because such tacticians can’t grasp a “war of ideas,” or an ideological enemy.
Many of these tacticians advocate using James Bond tactics to address a Martin Luther King, Jr. type of problem. They are proud of their tactical analyses, their databases, and their gadgets. But while they are patting themselves on their backs for their latest book, latest conference, latest interview, the hopeless and the helpless are dying at the hands of Islamic supremacists around the world every day, and the voice of those who would defend equality and liberty is getting buried. It is a moral atrocity. It is an unconscionable tragedy of our age that we must change.
Such professional tacticians literally cannot understand how to fight a “war of ideas,” because their entire profession is about tactics, not ideas. With the failure of America’s executive branch, intelligence, and military, unable to lead a “war of ideas,” the professional tacticians in counterterrorism and foreign policy predictably offered more tactics to deal with an increasing problem. Therefore you can see individuals like Peter Bergen calling for engagement with Islamic supremacists (aka “Islamists”), Paul Cruickshank claiming that the Muslim Brotherhood can help recruit “moderates,” Evan Kohlmann calling for talks with the Muslim Brotherhood, Matthew Levitt calling for engagement with “political Salafists,” and Michael Jacobson reporting on Al-Sharif’s renunciation of Al-Qaeda and ignoring his support for Jihad. You have the DHS and NCTC trying to create a “terror lexicon” that refuses to use the word “Jihad,” and the DHS supporting calls for “progress” over liberty. You have the Department of Defense defining the enemy as merely “extremists.” You have West Point Combating Terrorism Center publishing that counterterrorism tactics should include engagement with Islamic supremacist Muslim Brotherhood groups. These tacticians have no concept of what a “war of ideas” is, and they have no leadership and no direction. But incredibly, these tacticians are the people that have been touted to the American public as the “experts” on how to defeat Jihad. More tactical permutations are exactly what America does not need in fighting a “war of ideas.”
Every time that such tacticians call for greater “engagement” with Islamic supremacists – the ideology of Islamic supremacism and its component organizations gain more power, more legitimacy, and the root basis of Jihadist terror tactics becomes that much more difficult to overcome. In a war of ideas, these misguided tacticians are pouring water in a sinking boat. We need change the rules in this horrible, dysfunctional process that is only spreading hopelessness and anguish to those who need equality and liberty in the world. That is why a political, grassroots effort to challenge the ideology of Islamic supremacism is so absolutely important for America. We need the American people themselves to challenge the misguided, counterproductive influence of such so-called experts that are taking America in the wrong direction, and helping to legitimize Islamic supremacism that will incite and empower even more Jihadists to attack our nation.
4. Johnson: Is Western Capitalism in the process of submitting to Shariah Compliant Finance? What does the average man or woman on the street in the United States need to know about Shariah Law and its approach to finance?
The failure to acknowledge the enemy threat of Islamic supremacism remains the overall problem. The ability of Islamic supremacists to use their so-called Sharia-Compliant Finance (SCF) tactics to infiltrate America’s financial system is appalling. Those so-called capitalists who abet the process of undermining the very equality and liberty that allows free trade and capitalism in the first place are no different than publications like the Washington Post that publishes commentaries by Islamic supremacists who would deny freedom of speech and press. They are nothing less than suicidal to both capitalism and the inalienable human rights of liberty and equality.
The latest disgrace in this travesty happened on November 10, 2008, when the Federal Reserve Board actually purchased a portion of AIG, a company whose business includes selling Islamic supremacist Sharia-Compliant financial vehicles and insurance. As a taxpayer, you now own part of a company with a business in promoting Islamic supremacism. On November 6, 2008, the U.S. Treasury Department held a training class to “teach” government employees about the benefits of the Islamic supremacist Sharia finance. American patriots should call for the resignation of these individuals supporting such an anti-freedom, supremacist ideology, and I have provided an online petition for this at:
The fundamental thing that Americans need to understand is that Sharia is a segregationist and discriminatory legal system used by Islamic supremacists that is opposed to equality and liberty, and is also used to help fund Jihad. That is all the average man or woman on the street really needs to know. The American public would also find it valuable to know that the Sharia ideology promoted by Sharia-Compliant Finance is the same Sharia ideology that was used by the Taliban in Pakistan on November 10, 2008 to murder a woman for adultery, the same Sharia ideology that was used to murder a 13 year old girl last week who was raped in Somalia, and the same Sharia ideology supported by the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and Islamic supremacists around the world.
Clearly this Islamic supremacist ideology and its Sharia law is something that the American public does not want promoted in the United States or around the world. Clearly this Islamic supremacist ideology is something that the American taxpayer dollars should not be used in supporting or advocating. Clearly this Islamic supremacist ideology is something that the American taxpayers should not be used in supporting as a business. But the disgrace is that this is indeed happening in America today. The problem is that Islamic supremacism itself is not acknowledged as an ideology by America’s governmental leadership.
5. Johnson: Presently, the West is in the beginning stages of a war of ideas with political and militant Islamism. What must the average Westerner do in order to fully understand Radical Islam’s Jihadist ideology?
The public needs to understand that the challenge is not with “radical Islam,” with “extremism”, or with “Islamism”, but is with Islamic supremacism. We have no consistent understanding what “radical” anything means. Osama Bin Laden himself is against “extremism.” The term “Islamism” has become so perverted by tacticians in the counterterrorism and foreign policy communities (especially in the past year) that they have come to argue that “Islamism” is a good thing, not a totalitarian, anti-freedom, anti-equality ideology.
That is why I argue that public needs to understand that the challenge is with Islamic supremacism, something that has meaning and unequivocal context as to its position on equality and liberty.
Like all supremacist ideologies, Islamic supremacism is against the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty. The public needs to understand that the only way to fight this Islamic supremacist ideology is to confront and crush it. The American people may only be able to accomplish this in the United States in the short-term, but it must set an example of the United States in confronting and crushing the ideology of Islamic supremacism for the entire world. Jihadist violence is only one tactic of this activist ideology of Islamic supremacism. Islamic supremacism has myriad tactics necessary for its objectives in total control and submission of the world to its anti-equality, anti-liberty ideology. Ultimately, Islamic supremacism is doomed to fail. We know this because America’s founding fathers recognized the inalienable human rights of liberty and equality in the creation of America. But in the meantime, Islamic supremacism in all of its atrocities and tactics, including honor killings, death penalties for “blasphemy” and “apostasy,” suppression of women and non-Muslims, as well as Jihadist terrorism against all people, must be confronted. It is the moral obligation of patriotic Americans to defy Islamic supremacism.
While Islamic supremacism is the ideological basis for Jihad, Jihadist terrorism is only one tactic of Islamic supremacism.
It is important for the average individual to educate themselves on the challenges involving Islamic supremacism, its many aspects, and the challenges faced by those who seek to focus American away from a strategic war of ideas against Islamic supremacism. The average individual must also contact their governments about the imperative to confront Islamic supremacism in all of its tactics. But what really matters is that we need the average individual to publicly protest, march, and rally against the Islamic supremacist ideology. Without a groundswell of publicly-seen protest and outrage, there are many in the leadership of Western governments who are too afraid and too unwilling to confront this ideology.
6. Johnson: What is the difference between Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism? Is Political Islamism’s message anti-semitic or anti-zionist?
This question points out why defining the enemy ideology is so important in effective communication about the problem. Islamic supremacism is, of course, anti-semitic. This is obvious when you recognize it as a supremacist ideology, which by definition, is against all other ideologies other than itself. Islamic supremacism, by definition, is discriminatory and is against equality. Would we ask if white supremacism is against Hispanics or just Mexicans? The question is superfluous when the context of the issue is based on considering a supremacist ideology. Americans need to reorient their thinking to understand that in facing Islamic supremacism, we are dealing with a supremacist ideology and everything that a supremacist ideology represents.
7. Johnson: In 2001, following 9/11, President Bush declared war on all terrorists of global reach, singling out Al Qaeda and Hezbollah. In your expert opinion, how have these two groups been weakened since the declaration? How have they been strengthened?
The September 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) calls for the “use [of] all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.” The October 2002 Joint Resolution on Iraq mentions Al-Qaeda in passing, but does not “declare war” on them. The biggest problem remains that neither of these authorizations for use of military force defines an enemy ideology of Islamic supremacism and declares war on it.
Without such a true declaration of war against Islamic supremacism, the tacticians and the individuals “taking orders” all have to interpret who and what the enemy is. Without such a declaration of war, the Washington Post has published an editorial commentary from pro-Hezbollah Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah. If America was at war with Islamic Supremacism, and Hezbollah was designated as an organization that was part of this war-time enemy, then the Washington Post management would rightly be prosecuted for treason. But when America’s governmental leadership does not effectively define the enemy, and when foreign policy advocates publicly challenge the validity of groups designated as “terrorist” organizations on the State Department’s Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) listing, you end up with war-time anarchy in defining “the enemy.” The Washington Post has also published a commentary by Hamas as well. Jimmy Carter met with Hamas for negotiations. Were the Washington Post management or Jimmy Carter arrested? With such anarchy in defining the enemy, in the first Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial, jurors found the HLF innocent because they didn’t believe Hamas was a terrorist organization. We have sitting U.S. Senators and Congressmen who endorse a report from the U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project that advocates negotiations with Hezbollah and Hamas. Dennis Ross, Middle East Foreign Policy adviser for Barack Obama, was part of the leadership group that advocated such negotiations. What were the consequences? The congressional individuals endorsing the U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project report were re-elected and this was not an issue in the successful election of Barack Obama to become President.
The point is that there is no specific declaration of war against Islamic supremacists nor is there a specific declaration of war against Islamic supremacist organizations. The authorizations for use of military force were too general and never amended to provide such clear guidance as to a specific enemy ideology or organization. If we can’t clearly declare war on such organizations, how could they possibly be weakened? America’s federal government has attempted a series of tactical measures to weaken Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah. When part of the country doesn’t believe that Al-Qaeda is responsible for 9/11, when the senior security minister for our so-called ally, the United Kingdom, calls for talks with Al-Qaeda, how much do we think that we have weakened Al-Qaeda? When we can’t even agree as a nation on the ideology behind Al-Qaeda, how much do we think that we have countered Al-Qaeda in the war of ideas? When commentaries by Hezbollah supporters are freely posted by the primary newspaper of the nation’s capital, how much do we think we have weakened Hezbollah?
America doesn’t have to accept such a dysfunctional tactical monofocus which allows such disgraces during war-time. Certainly Islamic supremacism is at war with America. America just hasn’t declared war back on Islamic supremacism yet. America is fighting more than terrorists. America is fighting an anti-equality, anti-liberty ideology of Islamic supremacism. That is what American must declare war on. When our nation gains the courage to begin the real war against Islamic supremacism, it will be the responsibility of our nation’s leaders to define the components of that enemy, including such terrorist organizations as war-time enemies. But we need to start with a declaration of war on Islamic supremacism, so that we can begin the long and necessary work of defining a global and total war strategy against all of its components, including terrorist organizations. Such a war strategy must include severe consequences for those that would consort with, support, and promote the enemy during war-time.
8. Johnson: If you could give three suggestions to the incoming President Elect regarding Middle East policy and winning the war of ideas, what advices would you give to Barack Hussein Obama?
President-Elect Obama should first start by reading the Declaration of Independence. It is publicly available for him to view at the National Archives, a few blocks away from where he has been employed as a U.S. Senator. He needs to read that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” This is the foundation and the definition, the very declaration of America’s national identity and purpose. This is what we are fighting for, and this is what the war of ideas against Islamic supremacism is all about.
The ideology of Islamic supremacism, like all supremacist ideologies, is against such rights, against equality, against liberty, and seeks to deny humanity its right of life and the pursuit of happiness. Islamic supremacism seeks to suppress, control, and destroy such rights, destroy such hope, destroy the lives of those who would defy it, and destroy the happiness of a society that supports equality and liberty. If our war strategies, our foreign policy, our approach to dealing with the threats to America, is not based in understanding this identity of America and those who would oppose us, then it needs to be changed. Yes, we can change those tactics in America that do not reflect who and what we are, and yes, we can change our failure to define and confront the Islamic supremacist enemy.
In the event that President-Elect Obama needs any reminder as to the willingness of America to embrace the change necessary to defy supremacism, he only needs to walk down to the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC where he will see Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address hammered in the marble walls. President Abraham Lincoln reminded the nation of why the sacrifices in the American Civil War defying supremacism were so necessary when he stated that “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” Our nation paid a terrible sacrifice for defending such inalienable human rights. Moreover, it took yet another 100 years to finally demonstrate the need to fully confront supremacism as an ideology across the nation. Over that time, the ranks of the white supremacist terrorism group, the Ku Klux Klan, grew to 4 million at one point. But with resolve and determination, our nation confronted, undermined, attacked, and discredited the white supremacist ideology. It crushed it so completely and so totally that a nation that once had denied the right of black Americans to vote elected a black American as president. We can confront and crush supremacism, yes we can. We have seen it with our own eyes and heard it with our own ears. Our generation must take such truths that we know, use them to defy Islamic supremacism and defend equality and liberty in the world. Yes, we can.
Finally, I would suggest President-Elect Obama keep a copy of the autobiography of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on his desk. I do and I read it often. In its pages, I remember the fearlessness, determination, and resolve of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in confronting supremacism. In its pages, I remember the uncompromising stance of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in refusing to engage with supremacism, in refusing to reconcile with supremacism, and in refusing to accommodate supremacism. I remember Dr. King. I remember the America that he fought and died for, and I remember his uncompromising position in defense of equality and in defiance of supremacism. Now when our nation is faced with this grave enemy ideology of Islamic supremacism, I would challenge President-Elect Obama to also remember Dr. King and to remember Dr. King’s courage and defiance in the face of supremacism. I would challenge President-Elect Obama to do the right thing, the American thing, and follow Dr. King’s example in choosing an uncompromising confrontation against Islamic supremacism today. President-Elect Obama does not have to listen to his advisers or from the cacophony of tacticians that will seek to send him in the wrong direction. President-Elect Obama only needs to follow our national treasures of wisdom in defending the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty for all people… and defy Islamic supremacism. Yes, we can.