What issues can GOP work with Democrats on today? Are there issues where the two sides can come together to pass something of substance for the country?
Yea, I think there are if people will work with us. But that’s going to require the Senate cooperating as well.
What issues specifically do you think the two sides can cooperate on?
I would have hoped that we could have worked toward an energy issue. I mean, when Ed Markey — nice guy, smart guy, but on diametrically opposite ends — when he has said to me, ‘seems like we could work something out on the use of natural gas.’ Well, that sounds to me like something we ought to work on. You know, that could make us energy independent. We ought to use it. We know we have so much of it. We can be energy independent so, no, I think we could do something regarding the use of natural gas that could get this country completely energy independent on our own. Independent within 10 years. But we need to start moving now. I think we could work on that.
You mentioned earlier that one of things you have been criticized for is saying that President Obama’s policies in the Middle East are leading to a “new Ottoman Empire.” From your perspective, is he naïve about what his policies are producing? Or is there some other explanation in your opinion?
I think a couple of things. I don’t ascribe any ill motive to Obama, but I think two things. No. 1, naiveté is one. And that’s — it’s just not being wise, and naively believing that he can change people’s hearts with a good speech. You know, going to Egypt, going to the Middle East, make a good speech and you totally change the hearts of people who hate us. That’s what I think he naively believes. And not only that, but then throw gratuities toward your enemies and all of a sudden they’ll love you. Well, it doesn’t work that way. So it’s one thing, naively thinking he can shape people’s positions and make them love us by a good speech. We’ve seen from his ratings in Muslim countries — they’re now far lower than [former President George W.] Bush’s ever even were, down like 15 percent, the last one we saw approval in Muslim countries for Obama.
And then the other second aspect is — looking for the best way to say — he has advisers around him that do not have the same goal as he does. He has people around him giving advice who support the Muslim Brotherhood and who steer him in wrong directions.
Now when you say “support the Muslim Brotherhood” do you mean they have the same goals of the Muslim Brotherhood or that they think the Muslim Brotherhood is a moderate force?
No, I will say based on the findings of the Dallas Federal Court and the Fifth Circuit of Appeals, the two largest front groups for the Muslim Brotherhood are ISNA, the Islamic Society of North America, and CAIR, Council on American-Islamic Relations. And people from ISNA, like the President Imam [Mohamed] Magid, has access to him. He had access in the State Department and Justice Department. And it appears that he is pretty much welcome most places. Helped the FBI supposedly with their redirection. So you have people like that who are actual members of organizations that federal courts have said are the largest Muslim Brotherhood front organizations in America. So it’s not me saying it, it’s the federal courts.
But you think they are significant influencers of Obama’s foreign policy — not just peripheral figures? I mean, do you think these are the people President Obama is relying on to shape his foreign policy?
I think it’s born out that this administration believes that the best advice they can get on how to deal with radical Islam is to listen to people who happen to be in or have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. And it’s just not right.