Archive for the ‘Obama and Islamic terrorism’ category

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Hillary — Lies, Benghazi, Murders and Consequences

July 7, 2016

Hillary — Lies, Benghazi, Murders and Consequences, Dan Miller’s Blog, July 7, 2016

(The views expressed in this post are mine and are not necessarily those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

Hillary Clinton, who if elected would be President Obama Part Two, is a world-class liar. Whenever She considers truth damaging to Herself — as it usually is — She lies. Normally, She gets away with it. She lied about her State Department e-mails: guilty as hell and free as a bird. She lied about the terrorist attack in Benghazi and, thus far, has got away with it. This year, it is up to the American people to do the only thing we can to prevent Her from becoming President Obama Part Two. Our only way to do that will be to deny Her what She considers “Her turn” to continue Obama’s quest to destroy America.

Guilty as Hell and free as a bird

Guilty as Hell and free as a bird

First, a flash-back

She lied misspoke, as She often does.

On July 5th, during FBI Director Comey’s address on his recommendation that She not be indicted, She was revealed as a consummate liar. She then got adverse press, even from the lamebrain media. For her lies evidenced there alone, She should not become “our” president. She will not if we stand firm. Please see The FBI Recommendation Not to Indict Hillary Will Help Trump.

This brings us to The Benghazi Clusterdunk

The following video shows that the Obama-Clinton administration should, and could, have sent American military resources to prevent American deaths in Benghazi. For political reasons, resources were not sent: elections were comings soon, so Islamic terror needed to have been defeated and nation-building had to have been successful in Lybia. Both were lies.

The next video provides what we know about the Clinton-Obama administration refusals to send American military help. There is much that we don’t know, because of the Obama administration chose to provide lies instead of truthful answers.

Hillary lied, Obama lied. Americans died and Obama got a second term in office. Now Hillary wants Her “turn.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xA2_LDKm8s

Knowing full well that the attack had nothing to do with a poorly made video — for which the maker was gratuitously jailed — Hillary and Obama lied. Ambassador Rice may also have lied intentionally. Either that or she was given a political spin instead of accurate information and had no reason to believe that she had been lied to.

September 25, 2011

According to the Majority Report on the Benghazi clusterdunk, as summarized by Robert Spencer,

  • Despite President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s clear orders to deploy military assets, nothing was sent to Benghazi, and nothing was en route to Libya at the time the last two Americans were killed almost 8 hours after the attacks began. [pg. 141]
  • With Ambassador Stevens missing, the White House convened a roughly two-hour meeting at 7:30 PM, which resulted in action items focused on a YouTube video, and others containing the phrases “[i]f any deployment is made,” and “Libya must agree to any deployment,” and “[w]ill not deploy until order comes to go to either Tripoli or Benghazi.” [pg. 115]
  • The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff typically would have participated in the White House meeting, but did not attend because he went home to host a dinner party for foreign dignitaries. [pg. 107]
  • A Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) sat on a plane in Rota, Spain, for three hours, and changed in and out of their uniforms four times. [pg. 154] [to avoid offending the locals by wearing military attire — DM]
  • None of the relevant military forces met their required deployment timelines. [pg. 150]
  • The Libyan forces that evacuated Americans from the CIA Annex to the Benghazi airport was not affiliated with any of the militias the CIA or State Department had developed a relationship with during the prior 18 months. Instead, it was comprised of former Qadhafi loyalists who the U.S. had helped remove from power during the Libyan revolution. [pg. 144]

Part II

  • Five of the 10 action items from the 7:30 PM White House meeting referenced the video, but no direct link or solid evidence existed connecting the attacks in Benghazi and the video at the time the meeting took place. The State Department senior officials at the meeting had access to eyewitness accounts to the attack in real time. The Diplomatic Security Command Center was in direct contact with the Diplomatic Security Agents on the ground in Benghazi and sent out multiple updates about the situation, including a “Terrorism Event Notification.” The State Department Watch Center had also notified Jake Sullivan and Cheryl Mills that it had set up a direct telephone line to Tripoli. There was no mention of the video from the agents on the ground. Greg Hicks—one of the last people to talk to Chris Stevens before he died—said there was virtually no discussion about the video in Libya leading up to the attacks. [pg. 28]
  • The morning after the attacks, the National Security Council’s Deputy Spokesperson sent an email to nearly two dozen people from the White House, Defense Department, State Department, and intelligence community, stating: “Both the President and Secretary Clinton released statements this morning. … Please refer to those for any comments for the time being. To ensure we are all in sync on messaging for the rest of the day, Ben Rhodes will host a conference call for USG communicators on this chain at 9:15 ET today.” [pg. 39]
  • Minutes before the President delivered his speech in the Rose Garden, Jake Sullivan wrote in an email to Ben Rhodes and others: “There was not really much violence in Egypt. And we are not saying that the violence in Libya erupted ‘over inflammatory videos.’” [pg. 44]
  • According to Susan Rice, both Ben Rhodes and David Plouffe prepared her for her appearances on the Sunday morning talk shows following the attacks. Nobody from the FBI, Department of Defense, or CIA participated in her prep call. While Rhodes testified Plouffe would “normally” appear on the Sunday show prep calls, Rice testified she did not recall Plouffe being on prior calls and did not understand why he was on the call in this instance. [pg.98]
  • On the Sunday shows, Susan Rice stated the FBI had “already begun looking at all sorts of evidence” and “FBI has a lead in this investigation.” But on Monday, the Deputy Director, Office of Maghreb Affairs sent an email stating: “McDonough apparently told the SVTS [Secure Video Teleconference] group today that everyone was required to ‘shut their pieholes’ about the Benghazi attack in light of the FBI investigation, due to start tomorrow.” [pg. 135]
  • After Susan Rice’s Sunday show appearances, Jake Sullivan assured the Secretary of the State that Rice “wasn’t asked about whether we had any intel. But she did make clear our view that this started spontaneously and then evolved.” [pg. 128]
  • Susan Rice’s comments on the Sunday talk shows were met with shock and disbelief by State Department employees in Washington. The Senior Libya Desk Officer, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, State Department, wrote: “I think Rice was off the reservation on this one.” The Deputy Director, Office of Press and Public Diplomacy, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, State Department, responded: “Off the reservation on five networks!” The Senior Advisor for Strategic Communications, Bureau of Near East Affairs, State Department, wrote: “WH [White House] very worried about the politics. This was all their doing.” [pg. 132]
  • The CIA’s September 13, 2012, intelligence assessment was rife with errors. On the first page, there is a single mention of “the early stages of the protest” buried in one of the bullet points. The article cited to support the mention of a protest in this instance was actually from September 4. In other words, the analysts used an article from a full week before the attacks to support the premise that a protest had occurred just prior to the attack on September 11. [pg. 47]
  • A headline on the following page of the CIA’s September 13 intelligence assessment stated “Extremists Capitalized on Benghazi Protests,” but nothing in the actual text box supports that title. As it turns out, the title of the text box was supposed to be “Extremists Capitalized on Cairo Protests.” That small but vital difference—from Cairo to Benghazi—had major implications in how people in the administration were able to message the attacks. [pg. 52]

Part III

  • During deliberations within the State Department about whether and how to intervene in Libya in March 2011, Jake Sullivan listed the first goal as “avoid[ing] a failed state, particularly one in which al-Qaeda and other extremists might take safe haven.” [pg. 9]
  • The administration’s policy of no boots on the ground shaped the type of military assistance provided to State Department personnel in Libya. The Executive Secretariats for both the Defense Department and State Department exchanged communications outlining the diplomatic capacity in which the Defense Department SST security team members would serve, which included wearing civilian clothes so as not to offend the Libyans. [pg. 60]
  • When the State Department’s presence in Benghazi was extended in December 2012, senior officials from the Bureau of Diplomatic Security were excluded from the discussion. [pg. 74]
  • In February 2012, the lead Diplomatic Security Agent at Embassy Tripoli informed his counterpart in Benghazi that more DS agents would not be provided by decision makers, because “substantive reporting” was not Benghazi’s purpose. [pg. 77]
  • Emails indicate senior State Department officials, including Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan, and Huma Abedin were preparing for a trip by the Secretary of State to Libya in October 2012. According to testimony, Chris Stevens wanted to have a “deliverable” for the Secretary for her trip to Libya, and that “deliverable” would be making the Mission in Benghazi a permanent Consulate. [pg. 96]
  • In August 2012—roughly a month before the Benghazi attacks—security on the ground worsened significantly. Ambassador Stevens initially planned to travel to Benghazi in early August, but cancelled the trip “primarily for Ramadan/security reasons.” [pg. 99]
  • Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta bluntly told the committee “an intelligence failure” occurred with respect to Benghazi. Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell also acknowledged multiple times an intelligence failure did in fact occur prior to the Benghazi attacks. [pg. 129]

And now, two wrap-ups:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pwZvZGQfbg

Conclusions

Hillary lied, Obama lied and Islamist al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists murdered Americans because no American military resources were sent, even though available. Their deaths were not only unnecessary, they were and remain a disgrace.

There is now only one action that we can take, and that will be on November 8th. Then, we will vote either for Obama Part Two becoming Obama Part One, thereby affirming their disgraceful actions and inactions or disown them. It’s up to us to disown them both.

Categories: 2016 elections, al-Qaida, Benghazi, Benghazi - Rescue Interrupted, Benghazi report, Clinton cover ups, Clinton lies, Democrats, Department of State, Federal Government, Foreign policy, Hillary Clinton, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Republicans, U.S Government, U.S. Congress, U.S. Military, U.S. politics, You Tube
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Bad Ideas Created Benghazi

July 5, 2016

Bad Ideas Created Benghazi, Front Page Magazine, Bruce Thornton, July 5, 2016

Witch of Benghazi

The House Select Committee on Benghazi report confirms what we pretty much already knew. The Obama administration and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton completely politicized this country’s foreign policy in order to ensure the reelection of Obama and to serve the future presidential ambitions of Hillary Clinton. Along the way Obama, Clinton et al. made dangerous decisions, such as establishing the consular outpost in Benghazi, and ignoring the consul’s pleas for more security. They also ignored the many warning signs of incipient attacks, bungled the response to the attack on September 11, 2012, and then obfuscated, spun, and outright lied in the aftermath. The House report adds new details that flesh out the story, but enough had already been leaked to confirm Clinton’s despicable sacrifice of American lives on the altar of her obsessive ambition.

Toxic ambition, sheer incompetence, and the self-serving politics of the individuals involved mean they bear the primary responsibility for this disaster. But Benghazi illustrates as well the climate of bad ideas that make such decisions possible. Bad politicians eventually go away, but malignant ideas and received wisdom are deeply rooted in our institutions, transcending individuals. The Benghazi fiasco illustrates two particularly tenacious ones.

The military intervention in Libya, the origin of the Benghazi tragedy, was another act of Western wishful thinking about “democratizing” and “reforming” the Muslim world. Despite the failure of George W. Bush’s efforts to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan, the so-called “Arab Spring” revolutions encouraged the Wilsonian “freedom and democracy” promoters in 2011 to make Libya yet another poster-child for this doomed project. Moreover, intervention seemingly could be done on the cheap. No troops need be deployed, since jets and missiles could topple the psychotic Muammar Gaddafi––an autocrat straight out of central casting, whose genocidal bluster gave the West a pretext for intervention.

For Hillary and Obama, this was the perfect opportunity to show those neocon militarists what “smart power” was all about, and strike a contrast with the “cowboy” Bush’s “unilateralist” bumbling in Iraq. A UN resolution was secured, and a NATO-led coalition of 19 states assembled for enforcing a no-fly zone. The mission soon escalated into bringing about regime change and the death of Gaddafi.

For a while, this was a perfect, low-cost, quick little war that would illustrate the various shibboleths of moralizing internationalism: international diplomatic approval for the use of force, multilateral coalition building, a reliance on air power that minimized casualties among participating militaries, and a smaller role for the US, which would be “leading from behind,” as an Obama advisor said. This last idea reflected Obama’s belief that the US needed to diminish its role in world affairs and avoid the arrogant overreach that stained its history abroad, most recently in Iraq. This notion of America’s global sins is another bad idea reflecting ideology, not historical fact.

For Secretary of State Clinton, the Libya intervention would be the showcase of her tenure at State and proof of her superior foreign policy skills and presidential potential. Of course, we all know that the toppling of Gaddafi has been a disastrous mistake. Gaddafi was a brutal creep, but he kept in check the jihadists from Libya eager to kill Americans in Iraq and foment terror throughout the region. His departure created a vacuum that has been filled with legions of jihadist outfits across North Africa, including ISIS franchises. They are armed in part with weapons plundered from Gaddafi’s arsenals such as surface-to-air missiles, assault rifles, machine guns, mines, grenades, antitank missiles, and rocket-propelled grenades. Yet eager to protect her defining foreign policy achievement, Hillary kept open the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi even as other nations pulled out their personnel because of the increasing danger caused by the new Libyan government’s inability to control and secure its territory.

Four dead Americans were the cost of political ambition and adherence to the bankrupt idea that liberal democracy can be created on the cheap in a culture lacking all of the philosophical and institutional infrastructure necessary for its success: inalienable rights, equality under the law, transparent government, accountability to the people, separation of church and state, fair and honest elections, and the freedom of speech and assembly. The folly of expecting democracy in a culture alien to it became clear in the aftermath of Gaddafi’s downfall, when the Libyan National Transitional Council’s Draft Constitutional Charter proclaimed, “Islam is the religion of the state, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia).” The idea of exporting democracy, however, still has a tight hold on many in the West both on the left and the right, which means we have not seen the last of its bloody and costly failures.

Equally bipartisan has been the next bad idea: that al Qaeda, ISIS, et al. are fringe “extremists” who have “hijacked” Islam, and that the vast majority of Muslims are “moderates” grieved by this tarnishing of their noble faith. It was George W. Bush who said in his first address after 9/11 that Islam’s “teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah,” establishing the model for his administration’s policy of “outreach” to Muslims. Obama has taken this delusion to surreal extremes, refusing in the face of mountains of evidence to link the numerous ISIS attacks of the last few years to Islam, and proscribing “jihad” and “radical Islamist” from the government’s communications and training manuals.

It was this imperative to sever Islamic terrorism from its roots in traditional Islamic doctrine that in part accounted for the lies that Hillary, Obama, and their minions like National Security Advisor Susan Rice told in the aftermath of the Benghazi attacks. They peddled the narrative that a spontaneous protest against an obscure Internet video insulting Mohammed had morphed into a violent attack. This lie traded in the delusional belief that despite its 14-century-long record of invasion, murder, slaving, colonization, and occupation­­––all in fulfillment of the divine commands “to slay the idolaters wherever you find them” and “to fight all men until they say there is no god but Allah” –– Islamic doctrine could not possibly justify the actions of modern terrorists. So powerful was the need to protect this belief and, of course, her political future that Clinton lied to the faces of the parents of the four dead Americans, promising to “get” the hapless filmmaker, even as she knew on the very night of the attacks that there was no protest against the video near the consular outpost.

Nor are the various pretexts for this evasion of historical fact convincing. The worst is that making explicit the link between jihadism and Islam will endanger innocent Muslims and stoke “Islamophobia.” There is no evidence that this is the case, and hate crimes against Jews still vastly outnumber those against Muslims. Not much better is the notion that pious Muslims, supposedly offended by “blasphemers” like al Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS, will not cooperate with police and the FBI if we state simple facts about their faith and its history.

This idea is psychologically preposterous. It assumes that Muslim pique at infidel statements about their religion trumps their assumed desire to stop the violent “distorters” of their beloved faith. It also assumes that to Muslims, such insults justify keeping quiet about the planned murders of innocents––a damning indictment of the very people whom the “nothing to do with Islam” crowd are so anxious to mollify. Worse, it confirms the unique triumphalism of Islam, whose adherents expect from non-believers deference to their faith, even as Muslims across the globe are slaughtering and torturing people simply because they are non-believers. Such careful monitoring of our discourse about Islam, at the same time Muslim intellectuals routinely attack the West for its alleged historical sins against Islam, is a sign of weakness and fear that encourages our enemies to hit us again.

We’ve been operating by this double standard for decades, and terrorist groups have expanded across the globe, while jihadist violence has murdered Americans in Boston, San Bernardino, Fort Hood, and Orlando, to name just the deadliest attacks. It’s safe to say that the tactic of flattering Muslims and confirming their sense of superiority to infidels has failed to keep us safe.

But if we really want to be honest, we won’t just rely on the weasel-word “Islamist,” which still suggests that the beliefs of the jihadists are somehow a doctrinal aberration. Those of both parties who continually talk about “moderate Muslims” and use the word “Islamist” to distinguish them from jihadists should heed Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Erdogan: “The term ‘Moderate Islam’ is ugly and offensive; there is no moderate Islam; Islam is Islam.” Using “Islamic” rather than “Islamist” will recognize the continuity of modern jihadism with traditional Islamic doctrines. Whitewashing that fact has done nothing to stop jihadist violence, and it is an enabler of those ordinary Muslims who refuse to acknowledge Islam’s illiberal and violent doctrines.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton deserve the opprobrium history will inflict on them for sacrificing our security and interests to their personal ambition and ideological obsessions. But bad ideas had a hand in the killing of four Americans in Benghazi, and those bad ideas will continue to cripple us until we discard them and start facing reality.

Categories: Benghazi, Department of State, Foreign policy establishment, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Islam, Islamic jihad, Islamist moral values, Moderate Muslims, Obama and Islam, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Obama's leadership
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

U.S. still gets it wrong on Islamic State

July 1, 2016

U.S. still gets it wrong on Islamic State, Japan Today, Peter Van Buren, July 1, 2016

(An interesting and rather perceptive analysis, quite contrary to Kerry’s position that the suicide attack at the Turkish airport was a sign of desperation. — DM

WASHINGTON — Tuesday’s attacks at Istanbul’s main airport, which appear at this time to be the work of Islamic State, are the latest reminder that the United States should not downplay the group’s rudimentary – yet effective – tactics.

Since the wave of Islamic State suicide bombings in May – killing 522 people inside Baghdad, and 148 people inside Syria – American officials have downplayed the strategy as defensive. Brett McGurk, the Special Presidential Envoy in the fight against Islamic State, said the group “returned to suicide bombing” as the area under its control shrank. The American strategy of focusing primarily on the “big picture” recapture of territory seems to push the suicide bombings to the side. “It’s their last card,” stated an Iraqi spokesperson in response to the attacks.

The reality is just the opposite.

A day after the June 26 liberation of Fallujah, car bombs exploded in eastern and southern Baghdad. Two other suicide bombers were killed outside the city. An improvised explosive device exploded in southwest Baghdad a day earlier.

Washington should know better than to underestimate the power of small weapons to shape large events. After Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld labeled Iraqi insurgents as “dead enders” in 2003, they began taking a deadly toll of American forces via suicide bombs. It was the 2006 bombing of the Shi’ite al-Askari Golden Mosque that kicked the Iraqi civil war into high gear. It was improvised explosive devices and car bombs that kept American forces on the defensive through 2011.

To believe suicide bombings represent a weakening of Islamic State is a near-total misunderstanding of the hybrid nature of the group; Islamic State melds elements of a conventional army and an insurgency. To “win,” one must defeat both versions.

Islamic State differs from a traditional insurgency in that it seeks to hold territory. This separates it from al-Qaida, and most other radical groups, and falsely leads the United States to believe that retaking strategic cities like Fallujah from Islamic State is akin to “defeating” it, as if it is World War Two again and we are watching blue arrows move across the map toward Berlin. Envoy McGurk, following Fallujah, even held a press conference announcing Islamic State has now lost 47 percent of its territory.

However, simultaneously with holding and losing territory, Islamic State uses terror and violence to achieve political ends.

Islamic State has no aircraft and no significant long-range weapons, making it a very weak conventional army when facing down the combined forces of the United States, Iran and Iraq in set piece battles. It can, however, use suicide bombs to strike into the very heart of Shiite Baghdad (and Syria, Jordan, Yemen, and Turkey – as Tuesday’s bombing reminds us), acting as a strong transnational insurgency.

Why does such strength matter in the face of large-scale losses such as Fallujah?

Violence in the heart of Iraqi Shiite neighborhoods empowers hardliners to seek revenge. Core Sunni support for Islamic State grows out of the need for protection from a Shi’ite dominated military, which seeks to marginalize if not destroy the Sunnis. Reports of Shi’ite atrocities leaking out of the ruins of Sunni Fallujah are thus significant. Fallujah was largely destroyed in order to “save” it, generating some 85,000 displaced persons, mirroring what happened in Ramadi. Those actions remind many Sunnis of why they supported Islamic State (and al-Qaida before them) in the first place.

Suicide strikes reduce the confidence of the people in their government’s ability to protect them. In Iraq, that sends Shiite militias into the streets, and raises questions about the value of civil institutions like the Iraqi National Police. Victories such as the retaking of Ramadi and Fallujah, and a promised assault on Mosul, mean little to people living at risk inside the nation’s capital.

American commanders have already had to talk the Iraqi government out of pulling troops from the field to defend Baghdad, even as roughly half of all Iraqi security forces are already deployed there. This almost guarantees more American soldiers will be needed to take up the slack.

Anything that pulls more American troops into Iraq fits well with the anti-American Islamic State narrative. Few Iraqis are left who imagine the United States can be an honest broker in their country. A State Department report found that one-third of all Iraqis believe the Americans are actually supporting Islamic State, while 40 percent are convinced that the United States is trying to destabilize Iraq for its own purposes.

In a country like Turkey, suicide bombings play out in a more complex political environment. Turkey has effectively supported Islamic State with porous borders for transit in and out of Syria, and has facilitated the flow of oil out of Syria and Iraq that ultimately benefits the group. At the same time, however, Turkey opened its territory to American aircraft conducting bombing runs against Islamic State. Attacks in Turkey may be in response to pressure on the nation to shift its strategy more in line with Western demands. Russia (no friend of Islamic State) and Turkey have also recently improved relations; the attack in Istanbul may have been a warning shot reminding Turkey not to get too close.

The suicide bombings – in Turkey and elsewhere – are not desperate or defensive moves. They are not inconsequential, even if their actual numbers decline. They are careful strategy, the well-thought out application of violence by Islamic State. The United States downplays them at great risk.

Categories: Foreign policy, Iraq war, Islamic terror groups, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Obama and Middle East, Syria war, Turkey
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Why Our Leaders Won’t Name the Enemy

June 28, 2016

Why Our Leaders Won’t Name the Enemy, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, June 28, 2016

ol

After the Orlando attack, Obama ranted that it did not matter what we called Islamic terrorism. “What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIS less committed to trying to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction.”

The “Islamic terrorists by any other name would smell as sweet” argument is the last resort of the losing side. It dismisses the whole issue as a matter of semantics with no bearing on the real world.

And that’s a neat rhetorical trick for the political side that relentlessly refuses to acknowledge reality.

One of the more shocking moments in Jeffrey Goldberg’s extended Atlantic write-up of Obama’s foreign policy came with his conversation with the Prime Minister of Australia. Obama, who has refused to recognize any connection between Islamic theology and violence, and made the hijab into a civil rights issue, told the Australian leader how he had seen Indonesia turn to “fundamentalist” Islam and noted, unfavorably, the large numbers of women now wearing hijabs as a sign of that fundamentalism.

Obama blamed the Saudis for pushing Wahhabism through imams and madrassas into Indonesia.

It wasn’t an original critique, but also not one that you hear much in Obama’s circles. When Obama reportedly tells world leaders that there will be “no comprehensive solution to Islamist terrorism until Islam reconciles itself to modernity” and undergoes reforms the way that Christianity did, it’s like suddenly having Khrushchev explain why Communism can’t work and will end up falling apart.

It’s shocking and revealing.

In moments like these we see that Obama knows that he’s lying. And Obama makes the awkward semantics argument because he knows that the existence of Islamic terrorism can’t be debated. When you are reduced to arguing that names don’t matter, it’s because you know that the name is right.

Plenty of leftists lie to themselves about Islamic terrorism. Obama is not lying to himself. He’s lying to us. He is willing to say things about Islamic terror to foreign leaders that he refuses to say to Americans.

He can tell them that Islamic terrorism is real and that the only way to stop it is to reform Islam.

And here is where we come back to his question of why naming Islamic terrorism matters. It’s a question that Obama has already answered. You can’t solve a problem until you define it. It may not matter what you call a rose, as long as you know that it’s a plant. If you don’t know that a rose is a flowering plant that grows out of the ground, then you’ll never figure out how to plant one. If you don’t know that Islamic terrorism is a theological implementation of its core religious identity, you won’t even know what it is you are supposed to be fighting. And you won’t win except through brute force.

We have never defined the problem of Islamic terrorism because that would just be too dangerous.

Why is Obama willing to talk about Saudi support for terrorism to the Prime Minister of Australia, but not to Americans? Why does he only suggest reforming Islam to foreign leaders in private?

The official story is that it would “empower” Islamic terrorists, but that’s a nonsensical claim. ISIS doesn’t derive its legitimacy from whether we call it ISIS, ISIL or Daesh. Nor are Muslims going to determine the theological legitimacy of a Jihadist group based on whether we refer to it as Islamic.

Telling the truth would no doubt “offend” Muslims. And the threat of offending Muslims continues to occupy far more branches of our government than fighting Muslim terrorism.

But Obama isn’t really afraid of offending Muslims. If he were, he wouldn’t have provided this little peek into his private meetings at all. Obama isn’t afraid of Muslims, terrorists or otherwise, he’s afraid of Americans.

Tell the truth and Americans might suddenly get the naughty idea that instead of waiting for Islam to “reform”, they ought to just deal with the problem at its source with a travel ban. They might decide that extra scrutiny for mosques really is warranted and that airport profiling would save everyone grief.

And, worst of all, they might realize that they have no reason to feel guilty about our foreign policy. If Islamic terrorism exists and is caused by Islam, then America isn’t and was never the problem.

That kind of thinking frightens Obama and the left far more than a hundred Orlando terror attacks.

Name the enemy and Americans might suddenly start feeling good about themselves. That outraged confidence which we associate with Pearl Harbor, but that made a brief return after September 11, might come back to stay. Americans would embrace patriotism and pride without doubt or guilt.

That is why Islamic terrorism can’t and won’t be named.

Whatever dislike Obama may harbor for the Islamization of Indonesia, he appears to be far less concerned by it than by the Americanization of America. He may indeed recognize Islamic terrorism to be a threat of some degree, but he views American patriotism as a much bigger threat.

He can give enlightened Atlantic readers a small peek behind the scenes to show them that he recognizes the obvious problem, but he isn’t about to extend that confidence nationwide.

And it’s not just Obama.

The real reason that our leaders won’t name the enemy is that they don’t like us and they don’t trust us. Running through their heads are nightmare scenarios like Brexit and Trump. They see their job as shepherding us away from our “worst impulses” toward a proper role within the global community.

They are quite capable of recognizing Islamic terrorism for what it is. They may not be terribly bright, but people in their positions have more than enough access to information for the conclusions to be inescapable. But they are determined not to allow Islamic terrorism to disrupt their larger plans for us.

It isn’t another 9/11 or 7/7 that worries them, but a resurgence of nationalism in response to it. That is why they will lie, mislead and even criminalize any dissent. Their response to every Islamic terrorist attack is to make us feel responsible, ashamed and helpless by transforming Muslims into the victims.

For these same reasons they will push mass Muslim migration no matter what the terror risks are. They will champion the hijab, even though they know it harms Muslim women. Why? Because these policies undermine our values and transform our countries. And that is their overriding agenda above all else.

That is what we are up against.

They know that they are lying about Islamic terrorism. It’s why Obama dismisses the subject as mere semantics. But it’s only one of many things that they are lying to us about. Obama lies to us about Islamic terrorism for the same reason that he lies to us about being able to keep your doctor.

He knows the truth, but the truth would interfere with the left’s larger plans to transform America.

Categories: Foreign policy, Obama and Islam, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Obama's America, Obama's hypocrisy
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

Dr .Jasser discusses CAIR’s Islamophobia list with the Mark Levin Show 06.21.2016

June 22, 2016

Dr .Jasser discusses CAIR’s Islamophobia list with the Mark Levin Show 06.21.2016 via YouTube

Categories: CAIR, Countering violent extremism, Hamas, Islam and homosexuals, Islamic reformation, Islamists in America, Islamists vs Islam, Islamophobia, Muslim Brotherhood, National secuity, Obama and Islamic terrorism, OIC, Orlando massacre, Radical Islam, Zuhdi Jasser
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Ted Cruz to Hold Hearing on Cover-up of Islamic Terror by Obama Administration

June 22, 2016

Ted Cruz to Hold Hearing on Cover-up of Islamic Terror by Obama Administration, Conservative Review, Daniel Horowitz, June 22, 2016

Senate Judiciary Committee member, Republican presidential candidate, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas questions Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, April 28, 2015, during the committee's hearing on oversight of the Homeland Security Department. (AP Photo/Lauren Victoria Burke)

Senate Judiciary Committee member, Republican presidential candidate, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.  Photo/Lauren Victoria Burke)

It’s been over a week since the largest terror attack on American soil in 15 years, yet nobody in Congress has successfully steered the discussion to the actual source of our perilous security situation. The Obama administration is covering up all connections of the Orlando shooter to known Islamic terrorists with the help of the Muslim Brotherhood advising DHS and the FBI.  Yet, all Republicans and Democrats want to discuss is guns. That is about to change.

Next Tuesday, June 28, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who chairs the Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts, will conduct a hearing investigating the willful blindness on the part of the relevant law enforcement agencies to domestic Islamic terror networks.  The subject of the hearing is “Willful Blindness: Consequences of Agency Efforts To Deemphasize Radical Islam in Combating Terrorism.”

Senators on the committee now have an opportunity to expose the Muslim Brotherhood influence within DHS and the FBI, their invidious “Countering Violent Extremism” Agenda, and their hand in covering up counter-terrorism investigations.

Senator Cruz hinted at the agenda he plans to pursue at this hearing in an op-ed for Conservative Review earlier this week:

President Obama’s politically correct reluctance to attribute the terrorist threat we face with radical Islam hobbles our ability to combat it by discouraging counterterrorism agents from taking radical Islam into account when evaluating potential threats. The examples of Fort Hood, Boston, San Bernardino, and Orlando demonstrate the harmful consequences of this administration’s willful blindness.

 

Categories: CAIR, Combatting violent extremism, Department of Homeland Security, Islamic jihad, Islamists in America, Obama and Islamic terrorism, radical Islam, Ted Cruz
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Guns, Islam and Orlando

June 22, 2016

Guns, Islam and Orlando, Bill Whittle Channel, via YouTube, June 21, 2016

asfd

Categories: Guns, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Orlando massacre
Tags: , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Cartoons of the Day

June 21, 2016

Via The Jewish Press

No-Profiling-Allowed

 

H/t Kingjester’s Blog

bigot-alert-li-600

 

H/t Vermont Loon Watch

Isl State

 

H/t Freedom is Just Another Word

Islamic Scholar

 

Motive

 

NRA

Categories: Christians, Gun control, Humor, Islamic jihad, Islamic State, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Profiling
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Dr. Jasser discusses the need to properly identify the problem within Islam 06.18.2016

June 20, 2016

Dr. Jasser discusses the need to properly identify the problem within Islam 06.18.2016 via YouTube, June 20, 2016

(Please see also, Dr. Jasser takes part in a Hannity special report Jihad In America 06.17.2016. DM)

Categories: CAIR, Combatting violent extremism, Department of Homeland Security, Foreign policy, Hillary Clinton, Islamic nations, Islamic radicalization, Islamic reformation, Islamic terrorism, Islamists in America, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Radical Islam, Zuhdi Jasser
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Dr. Jasser takes part in a Hannity special report Jihad In America 06.17.2016

June 20, 2016

Dr. Jasser takes part in a Hannity special report Jihad In America 06.17.2016 via YouTube, June 20, 2016

The blurb beneath the video states,

Dr. Jasser takes part in a Hannity special report Jihad in America discussing the recent Orlando massacre, Islamism, the Middle East and Muslim policies of both President Obama and the GOP presumptive nominee Donald Trump as well as the importance of properly identifying the issue within Islam that cultivates some followers to become radicalized.

Visit the American Islamic Forum for Democracy at http://www.AIFDemocracy.org

Join the conversation on Twitter @AIFDemocracy @DrZuhdiJasser

Categories: CAIR, Funding terrorism, Hillary Clinton, Islam in America, Islamic reformation, Islamists in America, Islamophobia, Obama and Islam, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Radical Islam, Sharia law, Supporting terrorism, Zuhdi Jasser
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »