Posted tagged ‘Obama and Islamists’

What to Remember in Fighting Radical Islam

February 28, 2017

What to Remember in Fighting Radical Islam, Gatestone InstituteSaied Shoaaib, February 28, 2017

Religious reform in Islam did not find support, as it did in the West. What does Trump need to do? There needs to be a stop to any form of cooperation with the varieties of political Islam and certainly the terrorist organizations.

Add to that: Dismantle the ideology that produces Islamic terrorism by supporting the disintegration of the ideology of terrorism through Islamic jurisprudence, Islamic schools, mosques, books, radio stations and television stations. Dry up the external financing and private Saudi and Gulf Islamic institutions in the West. And thus give to the Muslims what is normal in the West. We need to promote other Islamic religious choices, completely out of the ideology of the Islamic terrorist prison, and to encourage being part of the building and development of human civilization rather than the cause of its destruction.

***********************

In every Muslim-majority country, especially in the Middle East, the Islamic terrorist genie came out from under the ashes, built the Islamic state and threatened the West — both with terrorist operations and from inside, in a more surreptitious, seemingly peaceful manner, as the Muslim Brotherhood does.

It is important to understand that Islam is a religion that includes, in its structure, political power that governs and controls and spreads the force of arms.

US President Donald J. Trump has succeeded in naming a jihadi problem, political Islam, but it is hard to single out defective products from the factory without closing the factory — if one does not want them to appear again.

This does not mean that what Trump intends to do is not important; on the contrary, we need him after most Western politicians faced Islamic terrorism awkwardly, if they faced it at all. Sometimes they even cooperated with these terrorist organizations, invited their members to the White House; to Iftar dinners during Ramadan, and hugging what they falsely call “moderate Islam” — especially the Muslim Brotherhood, the incubator that most terrorist organizations come out of — instead of the true “moderate Muslims” who have been struggling to be heard above the crush of “influence,” infiltration and petro-dollars.

We can say that so far “Trumps’s recipe” for facing radical Islam had been tried before and failed. Dictatorships and military regimes in the Middle East, such as the presidents of Egypt Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak, and now el-Sisi, faced political and radical Islam. Russia did, and Saddam did in Iraq, Gaddafi in Libya, Bourguiba in Tunisia and others.

Perhaps the saddest failure is the Turkish model. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk built a dictatorship-state on the ruins of the Ottoman Empire. He decisively confronted all forms of political Islam, and destroyed the military wing of the army that dreamed of restoring that Empire. Atatürk founded a dictatorship guarded by the army’s broad powers, but within a constitutional and legal framework, to deter Islamists who might want to change his modernist structure. It was also meant to stop any move to Islamic rule that might want to change the relatively open and pro-Western ideas of the Kemalist Republic.

Atatürk dominated the religious institutions, and made them work for him; they gave him a legitimate Islamic platform. He wanted Islamic culture to prevail, but under his control.

Unfortunately, this model also failed. Turkey’s current president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, prosecuted the leaders of the army with trumped-up testimony; lowered the retirement age of the judiciary to force them out; fired educators, jailed journalists is building his Islamic state step by step.

1920-1Many Western politicians have cooperated with Islamists and Islamist organizations. (Image source: RT video screenshot)

In every Muslim-majority country, especially in the Middle East, the Islamic terrorist genie came out from under the ashes, built an Islamic state and threatened the West — both with terrorist operations and from inside, in a more surreptitious, seemingly peaceful manner, as the Muslim Brotherhood does.

Most of those who fought Islamic terrorism focused their efforts on the hunt for dangerous products from the factory of Islamic ideology, such as Anwar al-Awlaki or Osama bin Laden. This is important, but no one tried to shut down and destroy the factory itself.

Perhaps we remember that the West, in the fight against the ideology of communism, used weapons only rarely. The major part of the fight was against the ideology itself: encouraging and supporting its opponents, and disseminating ideas to counter those the Communists were exporting. There was a focus on the disadvantages of Communist ideology, such as oppression, tyranny and human rights violations. And suddenly the world woke up one day to find the Soviet Empire collapsed from inside.

We need from the West a positive energy to rebuild the civilization after the destructive energy that hollowed it out. And we need to dismantle the prevailing Islamic ideology that produces terrorism.

It is important to understand that Islam is a religion that includes, in its structure, political power that governs and controls and spreads the force of arms. First the Islamic prophet Muhammad published his call peacefully for nearly 13 years in Mecca, when the Quran verses called for tolerance, freedom of belief and other human values. But then Muhammad and some of his companions moved to the city of al-Madina and turned religion into a political authority aiming to expand and defend itself. It entered into a political and military struggle against its opponents within al-Madina and outside, especially with his tribe of Quraish.

At that time, Muhammad established what we might call political Islam. It was based on a new call: that Islam was no longer interested in the relationship between the individual and his God, as well as a good relationship with those around him, whether they agreed with his religious faith or not.

He turned the religion into a ruling political organization, undertaking to control — religiously, politically, socially and economically — Muslims and others. It builds on the culture of the tribe, spreads the force of arms and increases its numbers and the territories governed by them.

It became the religion of loyalty — meaning loyalty to the governor and vice-versa.

This structure continued after the death of Muhammad. Many ruled out of Quraish, the most prominent Turks, Al-Othmanin and the Ottoman Empire that expanded through force of arms to Persia; swept away the Christian Byzantine Empire; conquered by force North Africa, the Middle East, Greece, Spain and Eastern Europe

During this long history was established the Islamic culture that now prevails among the millions of Muslims in all corners of the world. It was founded on the sacred religious texts: the verses of the Quran and hadiths (the Prophet’s biography). Add to this a religious jurisprudence established during this imperial tide that swept the world. All of this, ordinary Muslims imprison inside them, unhappy. Some of them become potential soldiers for terrorist organizations and all varieties of political Islam.

This culture, prevalent in the West, is backed by money from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, especially Qatar, and often backed by money from the West itself — along with many politicians, often opportunistic.

What is the solution? From within. Islamic political power controls the Islamic world, whether military or in an everyday dictatorial form.

Religious reform in Islam did not find support, as it did in the West. What does Trump need to do? There needs to be a stop to any form of cooperation with the varieties of political Islam and certainly the terrorist organizations.

Add to that: Dismantle the ideology that produces Islamic terrorism by supporting the disintegration of the ideology of terrorism through Islamic jurisprudence, Islamic schools, mosques, books, radio stations and television stations. Dry up the external financing and private Saudi and Gulf Islamic institutions in the West. And thus give to the Muslims what is normal in the West. We need to promote other Islamic religious choices, completely out of the ideology of the Islamic terrorist prison, and to encourage being part of the building and development of human civilization rather than the cause of its destruction.

Good Riddance

February 27, 2017

Good Riddance, Front Page MagazineRobert Spencer, February 27, 2017

hijabmodel

The establishment media has found a new heroine: Rumana Ahmed, a hijab-wearing Muslim woman who worked at the National Security Council during the Obama administration and for eight days into the Trump administration, at which point she quit. 

Ahmed explained: “I had to leave because it was an insult walking into this country’s most historic building every day under an administration that is working against and vilifying everything I stand for as an American and as a Muslim.” That’s enough to send the media into self-righteous ululations of anti-Trump fury, but as always, there is more to this story than what the media is telling you, and a good deal about Rumana Ahmed that they would prefer you did not know.

In her piece in The Atlantic explaining why she left the Trump NSC (and it is important to note that she wasn’t fired by her supposedly “Islamophobic” new bosses; she quit), Ahmed sounds themes of post-9/11 Muslim victimhood that have become familiar tropes among Leftists: after recounting her idyllic life “living the American dream,” she says: “After 9/11, everything would change. On top of my shock, horror, and heartbreak, I had to deal with the fear some kids suddenly felt towards me. I was glared at, cursed at, and spat at in public and in school. People called me a ‘terrorist’ and told me, ‘go back to your country.’”

Not surprisingly, Ahmed made no mention of the fact that this Muslim victimhood narrative has been sullied, if not vitiated entirely, by the high number of “anti-Muslim hate crimes” that turn out to have been faked by Muslims. The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other Muslims have on many occasions not hesitated to stoop even to fabricating “hate crimes,” including attacks on mosques and even murders: a New Jersey Muslim was found guilty of murder that he tried to portray as an “Islamophobic” attack, and in 2014 in California, a Muslim was found guilty of killing his wife, after first blaming her murder on “Islamophobia.”

Ahmed blamed yet another murder on “Islamophobia”: “A harsher world began to reemerge in 2015,” she wrote in The Atlantic. “In February, three young American Muslim students were killed in their Chapel Hill home by an Islamophobe. Both the media and administration were slow to address the attack, as if the dead had to be vetted before they could be mourned. It was emotionally devastating.”

In reality, there is no evidence that the Chapel Hill murders were committed by an “Islamophobe.” U.S. Attorney Ripley Rand declared the day after the murders: “The events of yesterday are not part of a targeting campaign against Muslims in North Carolina.” Rand said that there was “no information this is part of an organized event against Muslims.” Nor has any emerged since then, although that fact has not stopped Islamic advocacy groups from routinely treating these murders as evidence of a wave of anti-Muslim hatred in the U.S. Ruhana Ahmed in The Atlantic abets this cynical and disingenuous agenda.

In the same vein, Ahmed claims: “When Trump first called for a Muslim ban, reports of hate crimes against Muslims spiked.” In reality, as MRC Newsbusters noted in late November, “A number of these incidents have been debunked already, though the scant details on the majority of stories would be near impossible to disprove (or prove!).”

Ahmed is not only dishonest; she’s connected. Before she went to work for the Obama administration, she was an officer of George Mason University’s Muslim Students Association (MSA). According to Discover the Networks, the “was established mainly by members of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in January 1963 at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Nyack College theologian Larry A. Poston writes that ‘many of the founding members of this agency [MSA] were members of, or had connections to,’ the Muslim Brotherhood or Jamaat-i-Islami.” The MSA is “a radical political force and a key lobbying organization for the Wahhabi sect of Islam, telling students that America is an imperialist power and Israel an oppressor nation. MSA speakers routinely spew anti-Semitic libels and justify the genocide against the Jews which is promoted by Islamic terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah and by the government of Iran.”

What’s more, “a 1991 Muslim Brotherhood internal document — titled ‘An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America’ — which named MSA as one of the Brotherhood’s 29 likeminded ‘organizations of our friends’ that shared the common goal of destroying America and turning it into a Muslim nation. These ‘friends’ were identified by the Brotherhood as groups that could help teach Muslims ‘that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands … so that … God’s religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions.’”

It is hard to imagine how someone who had served as an officer in an organization dedicated to “eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within” would so quickly be appointed to the National Security Council, but that was Barack Obama’s America. The Trump administration is indeed setting a strikingly different tone, one that Rumana Ahmed finds unacceptable. Her dissatisfaction and departure from the NSC are good reason for every patriotic American to applaud.

Gorka & Jasser: We Are Fighting ‘Not a War with Islam, but a War Inside Islam’

February 24, 2017

Gorka & Jasser: We Are Fighting ‘Not a War with Islam, but a War Inside Islam’, BreitbartJohn Hayward, February 24, 2017

isis-koran-640x480Flickr/AFP

Broadcasting live from CPAC 2017, SiriusXM host Alex Marlow spoke with Dr. Sebastian Gorka and Dr. Zuhdi Jasser about national security, Islamist terrorism, and their panel discussion, “When Did World War III Begin?”

(Audio at the link. — DM)

Marlow began by asking his guests what they expected from the national security segment of President Donald Trump’s scheduled address to the Conservative Political Action Conference.

“Exactly what we’ve heard before,” Gorka replied. “If you really want to understand the direction of the White House and how much everything changed at 12:01 on January the 20th, you look at two things: you look at a speech that really wasn’t carefully addressed or really paid enough attention to, that’s the Youngstown campaign speech, which was about the threat of jihad in general and what we’re going to do about ISIS.”

“Specifically, it really bears repeating, the inauguration, the address that the president gave at the inauguration, was explicit,” he continued. “Number one, we are going to eradicate the Islamic State – not degrade, not manage, not ameliorate – eradicate. And secondly, words have meaning. When he says our enemy is ‘radical Islamic terrorism,’ that is a 180 degree  change from the last eight years, when we weren’t allowed to even say who the enemy was.”

“Zuhdi knows it better than anybody because he understands that this isn’t about poverty or lack of education. It’s about people who are fighting for the soul of Islam – not a war with Islam, but a war inside Islam; as King Abdullah, as General Sisi has said, for which version is going to win,” Gorka said.

Marlow asked Dr. Jasser about the topic of language control Gorka touched upon and the previous administration’s reluctance to use explicit language like “radical Islamic jihad” to describe the enemy.

“We got to this point because we had an administration who was being whispered to by Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers, by apologists, by governments that might be our allies against al-Qaeda and ISIS, but they love a whack-a-mole program. They don’t want to treat the disease, which is not ‘violent extremism’ but violent Islamism,” Jasser charged.

“We have to start focusing on our own values,” he urged. “There’s nothing more American than fighting theocracy, and yet the Left for the last eight years has invoked blasphemy laws in America by telling us we can’t criticize Islamist political movements.”

Jasser predicted the new administration would succeed in destroying ISIS but warned that “it will come back in another form – two, three, four years later – unless we engage Muslim reformists, like our Muslim reform movement, to treat the underlying theocracy.”

Marlow complained that the mainstream media swiftly denounce candid talk about the problem of radical Islam as “hate speech” even when confined to straightforward reporting without editorial opinion, making it difficult to have a constructive discussion about the problem.

“I think this is exactly what the Saudi regime, the Iranian Khomeinists, the Brotherhood want, is they want to dominate what Islam means,” Jasser said. “And yes, it’s not my Islam, but we have to thread that needle. Because if you don’t call it political Islam or Islamism as the threat, you’re not going to be able to figure out who to engage. We want to engage anti-Caliphate, anti-violent jihad Muslims who are pro-freedom, pro-equality of men and women, who share our values. If we don’t do that discernment in our verbiage, we’re going to miss it and actually end up helping our enemies and end up actually not only being the firefighters, but the arsonists. We have to stop that cycle.”

“Let’s just take it one level deeper. It’s not just empowering our enemies, which would be bad enough,” Gorka added. “If you don’t talk truthfully about who the enemy is, how are you going to win? What we saw in the last eight years is a policy that actually weakened our most important allies.”

“So when you’ve got the president of the most populous Arab nation in the world say this is a war for the heart of Islam, General Sisi, when you’ve got King Abdullah with his Amman statement saying, ‘Look, we have to stop the jihadis hijacking the religion’ – we have a president here who stands up and says, ‘No, no, no, these are not the droids you’re looking for, the religion has nothing to do with this,’” he elaborated, referring to the Obama administration’s insistence on framing the war as a struggle against generic violent extremism.

“Do you know who we hurt the most? Those Muslims who are on the front lines with the jihadis, who understand this isn’t about poverty or lack of education; it’s about an ideology. So we’ve actually hurt the people who are on the front line the most. We’re not prepared to do that anymore. This administration’s going to help the Jordanians, help the Egyptians, help them fight this war,” Gorka vowed.

“I think we have to own what it means to be diverse,” Jasser suggested. “What is ‘diversity’ in the Muslim community? It’s not ethnic diversity. Being Muslim is not an identity movement of a monolithic homogenous group. It is a diverse ideological movement that has fundamentalist, orthodox, liberal, secularists that are all in this Muslim diverse group. So if the Left actually believes in diversity different from what Pelosi whispered into Andre Carson’s ear – ‘Tell them you’re Muslim’ – Islam is not a race. They’re racializing the faith. That’s the biggest obstacle.”

“I think the other thing I hope to see is not only us being against jihadists, but what are we for,” he added. “I think that will be the difference between some of the dictators in the Middle East, that yes, some of them have been on our side against jihad, the militants, but we are the adults in the world, in being for liberty and freedom. I hope that will be part of a Trump Doctrine.”

Gorka agreed, saluting Jasser as “the point man here in America for sense, for common sense in this battle.”

“The saddest part is there are people like him in the Middle East. There are people every day risking their lives on their blog sites, in North Africa, in the Middle East pushing back on this, saying, ‘I’m a Muslim, but I don’t think an infidel needs to be killed.’ That means he’s put the crosshairs on his chest,” Gorka noted. “In some parts of the Muslim world, that’s an instant death sentence.”

“That’s why the four million Muslims in America need to step up and act because we can do things here that you just can’t do in the Middle East,” Jasser said. “They end up in prison. They end up slaughtered, tortured.”

Marlow proposed that “the stifling of speech in the Muslim world is really what has allowed a lot of the jihadist movements to flourish.”

“Why do you think they use the term ‘Islamophobia’ instead of talking about, yes, there might be some bigotry against Muslims in the West?” Jasser asked. “They use the term Islamophobia because they want to anthropomorphize Islam so that you don’t criticize it, and they suppress free speech. That’s how they invoke blasphemy laws in the West.”

“You’re absolutely right. The freedom of speech issue is huge in the Middle East because it’s a life and death issue in many cases,” Gorka said. “But here, it’s almost as important. It’s not life and death, but it is closing down the discussion.”

“You look at what’s happened in the last four weeks with this administration,” he said. “There’s a phrase in soccer: you play the man on the ball. We’re not going to talk about policies; we’re going to attack individuals, whether it’s Kellyanne, the president, myself, Steve Bannon. They do that how? ‘We don’t want to talk about the threat to America. You’re a racist. You’re an Islamophobe. You’re a xenophobe. Oh, well, in that case, we can’t talk to you.’ That’s as dangerous as just the constant ad hominem attacks because then there is no discussion.”

Jasser said his message to CPAC was that “there is hope” for a lasting victory in the long war against Islamist extremism.

“The first step is to defeat the militants, which this president will finally do,” he said. “The second step is to go back to our American roots and defeat theocracy, work with Muslims and our Muslim reform movement. We have a two-page declaration that can be used, I hope, not only to vet refugees, to figure out which groups are with us and against us. I hope we start doing security clearances through those who share our values.”

“There are so many that are – not in this administration, but that are in the government from the previous administration – that I think are Islamists, that might not be violent extremists, but we need to shift the axis of the lens of Homeland Security, foreign policy, to countering violent Islamism. There’s nothing this group here and the country can do to better empower reform-minded Muslims that share our values than to shift from this blasé CVE to CVI,” Jasser said, lampooning the Obama administration’s acronym for “Countering Violent Extremism.”

Gorka referred to CVE as “garbage from the last eight years that obfuscated the threat.”

He said the most important step taken by the new administration was President Trump’s executive order to temporarily limit immigration from the most unsecure Middle Eastern nations.

“Whatever the final version of the reform measures are, the fact is, when an Iraqi collars me in the halls of Congress and says, ‘My friends back home in Iraq applaud this measure because they know how many bad guys are in Iraq that want to come over here, so do it. Thank you,’” Gorka said.

Dr. Sebastian Gorka is deputy assistant to President Trump and was formerly national security editor for Breitbart News. He is the author of Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War. Dr. Zuhdi Jasser is the founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and author of A Battle for the Soul of Islam: An American Muslim Patriot’s Fight to Save His Faith.

 

 

Four Muslim Groups Reject US Counter-Terror Funding

February 13, 2017

Four Muslim Groups Reject US Counter-Terror Funding, Clarion ProjectRyan Mauro, February 13, 2017

(Good! Now perhaps some of the funding will go to anti-Islamist groups, likely to use the money to discourage rather than to encourage radicalization. — DM)

minnesota-four-hpFour Minnesota youth from the Somali community who were convicted of terrorism-related offenses.

The good news is that there are plenty of non-profits, including Muslim ones with an unequivocal stand against Islamism that deserve the grant money. These organizations generally lack financial support from which to build a network, provide services, etc.

If certain Muslim nonprofits choose to put politics and ego above fighting extremism, then there are plenty of other options for these grants. 

***********************************

In a revealing trend, four nonprofits groups involved with the Muslim-American community have rejected federal funding for countering violent extremism. For these groups, their image — as well as making a political point – is a higher priority than fighting radical Islam and helping their communities.

The four Muslim groups had been privileged to receive Homeland Security grants to support their efforts to “counter violent extremism,” a generic and politically-correct term that the Obama Administration used to avoid verbiage related to Islam.

Now, these groups are willing to sacrifice that funding and cut their programs just to stick it to President Trump. Their form of protest is not to use their voices, but to try to show how bad President Trump is by increasing the suffering and danger for their constituents and country more broadly.

An organization for Somali youth in Minnesota named Ka Joog is rejecting $500,000 that was supposed to promote education, prevent radicalization, drug use and other harmful activities. Whether you agree with the premise that radicalization is caused by those problems or not, the fact is that Ka Joog chose to deny help to Somali youth in need.

Apparently unaware of how ridiculous his sentence sounded, executive director Mohamed Farah said the decision was made because President Trump is “promoting a cancerous ideology.” Yes, he actually said he’d decline an opportunity to fight the cancerous ideology of radical Islam because he is offended by the so-called “cancerous ideology” of President Trump.

One local Somali activist with a record of standing against radical Islam, Omar Jamal, said he disagrees with President Trump but “the community desperately needs the money” and it’s better to work with the government as best you can, regardless of politics.

A group in Michigan, Leaders Advancing and Helping Communities, won’t take $500,000 because it believes President Trump’s counter-extremism programs involve spying on Muslims. The group provided no evidence that accepting the money would actually require them to do that.

The organization’s programs involve public health, human services, youth development and education. They will suffer because of a hypothetical requirement that hasn’t happened yet or even been proposed by the Trump Administration.

The third group to join in, Unity Productions Foundation of Virginia, was offered $400,000 to develop films featuring Islamic scholars condemning terrorism and Muslim-Americans contributing to society.

Muslim-American leadership regularly complains that Islamic condemnations of terrorism do not get adequate attention and the public doesn’t seeing how Muslim-Americans are a positive part of the country.

This group was given a whopping $400,000 to do just that—but instead, it is responding to President Trump’s alleged anti-Muslim sentiment by rejecting money from his administration to combat anti-Muslim sentiment.

That makes absolutely no sense.

The Bayan Claremont Islamic school in California is the latest to join the trend, turning down $800,000 that was to be given to “improve interreligious cooperation, civic engagement and social justice.” About $250,000 of that would have been transferred to a dozen other nonprofits doing work for the Muslim-American community.

The school’s faculty includes some controversial Islamic leaders accused of spreading radicalism and ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. The staff includes Imam Suhaib Webb, Omid Safi and Ihsan Bagby.

Its president, Jihad Turk, said it was partially a response to reported plans by the Trump Administration to rename the Countering Violent Extremism programs to a title identifying radical Islam as the focus.

Keep in mind, Trump’s controversial plans—the travel pause (derided as a “Muslim ban”) designed to identify threats of radical Islam—don’t alter these services. These policies do not stop these groups from combating extremism on their own or from providing charity to those in need. You don’t have to agree with your president to help others and work to protect your country to the best of your ability.

By this logic, schools that dislike Education Secretary Betsy DeVos should punish their students by turning away federal funding.

Another element is at play here: Pressure from Islamists and their allies.

Fox News reports that two of the nonprofits “said they were rejecting grants they had already been awarded under the program because of concerns that it could damage their credibility or come with uncomfortable strings attached.”

Such attacks can make the Trump Administration lose Muslim partners, enabling Islamists to rally the community together like a single political party under their helm. An added bonus is that any danger and controversy that arises from the severed relationships can be blamed on Trump’s policies that these Muslim groups sabotaged.

The good news is that there are plenty of non-profits, including Muslim ones with an unequivocal stand against Islamism that deserve the grant money. These organizations generally lack financial support from which to build a network, provide services, etc.

If certain Muslim nonprofits choose to put politics and ego above fighting extremism, then there are plenty of other options for these grants.

Revealed yesterday: The Muslim Brotherhood lost a good friend when Obama left office and gained a formidable opponent with Trump

January 24, 2017

Revealed yesterday: The Muslim Brotherhood lost a good friend when Obama left office and gained a formidable opponent with Trump, American ThinkerThomas Lifson, January 24, 2017

Yesterday saw a stunning contrast as it was revealed that the outgoing Barack Obama funded Palestinians as almost his last act in office, while Donald Trump’s first full workday saw him call Egypt’s President Al-Sisi to offer support in his battle against the Muslim Brotherhood, the Ikhwan, which seeks his overthrow.

It’s all about the Muslim Brotherhood, that octopus of Islamic supremacist jihad that seeks to use all methods — legal, violent, or deceptive – to advance the goal of a world ruled by Islam.

Former President Obama’s last few hours in office saw him override a Congressional “hold” placed on $221 million funding for the Palestinians, whose goal remains the destruction of Israel in line with the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategy. Matthew Lee and Rick Lardner broke the story for the AP:

A State Department official and several congressional aides said the outgoing administration formally notified Congress it would spend the money Friday morning. The official said former Secretary of State John Kerry had informed some lawmakers of the move shortly before he left the State Department for the last time Thursday. The aides said written notification dated Jan. 20 was sent to Congress just hours before Donald Trump took the oath of office. (snip)

Congress had initially approved the Palestinian funding in budget years 2015 and 2016, but at least two GOP lawmakers — Ed Royce of California, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Kay Granger of Texas, who sits on the House Appropriations Committee — had placed holds on it over moves the Palestinian Authority had taken to seek membership in international organizations. Congressional holds are generally respected by the executive branch but are not legally binding after funds have been allocated.

That this move was a single digit salute to his opponents is evident in the other last minute beneficiaries of Obama’s granting of boons: the United Nations and climate change funding:

In addition to the $221 million for the Palestinians, the Obama administration also told Congress on Friday it was going ahead with the release of another $6 million in foreign affairs spending, including $4 million for climate change programs and $1.25 million for U.N. organizations

President Trump has come under fire for allegedly being anti-Muslim, when in fact his opposition is to violent jihad and those who promote world domination for Islam and the imposition of sharia law on every human being on the planet.  Oddly enough, the women marchers on Saturday were led by a fan of sharia, Linda Sarsour.

Actually, President Trump sees good relations with Muslims who oppose violent jihad and the Ikhwan, and acted dramatically on that yesterday, as Reuters reports:

 Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi and U.S. President Donald Trump discussed ways to boost the fight against terrorism and extremism on Monday and the new American leader underscored his commitment to bilateral ties, the two countries said.

Trump told Sisi in a telephone call he appreciated the difficulties faced by Egypt in its “war on terror” and affirmed his administration’s commitment to supporting the country, Sisi’s spokesman Alaa Youssef said in a statement.

“The U.S. president also expressed during the call his looking forward to the president’s awaited visit to Washington which is being prepared for through diplomatic channels,” the statement said.

“The U.S. president also expressed during the call his looking forward to the president’s awaited visit to Washington which is being prepared for through diplomatic channels,” the statement said.

The people who want to inflict terror attacks on us support the Palestinians funded by Obama, while they want to force Sisi out of office. For the moment, I will leave it to historians to explain why Obama chose to align himself with the former group, and I thank God that president Obama [sic] is supporting President Al-Sisi, who has openly called for reform of Islam.

 

Congratulations, President Trump! Now what? Reversing the ostrich complex

January 21, 2017

Congratulations, President Trump! Now what? Reversing the ostrich complex, Jihad Watch

The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government.

trump-oval-office

We, as military officers, have failed to treat linguistics – the war of words – with the level of importance to which it deserves. As summarized in Lawfare: The War Against Free Speech:

“The war against Islamism is as much a war of ideas as it is a physical battle, and therefore the dissemination of information in the free world is paramount. The manipulation of Western court systems, the use of Western “hate speech laws” and other products of political correctness to destroy the very principles that democracies stand for, must be countered.

Unfortunately Islamist lawfare is beginning to limit and control public discussion of Islam, particularly as it pertains to comprehending the threat posed by Islamic terrorist entities. As such, the Islamist lawfare challenge presents a direct and real threat not only to our constitutional rights, but also to our national security.”[184]

Can you imagine a scenario where, during World War II, if Nazis complained to us about our analyzing Mein Kampf or the Enigma machine, we would have stopped?[117] Or where we would have appointed Nazi party members or open supporters and advocates to senior leadership positions within the Executive Branch departments or as special assistants to the President?[118][119] [120] It would have been insane to fight a war that way.

And yet that is exactly what we are doing now with this policy and this administration. Islamic doctrine, as codified in the Qur’an, Hadith, Sira and sharia law, is the Enigma machine with which we can decode the actions and intentions of the threat. But Islamic law prohibits non-Muslims from even purchasing the Qur’an.[121]

****************************

“ISIL [The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant] is not ‘Islamic.’” – President Barack Obama[1]

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” – Joseph Goebbels[2]

Why does our government recoil “at the notion that we might actually want to scrutinize an ideology that fuels anti-American militarism”?[3] The purge of “Islam,” “jihad,” “sharia,” and other related words from our National Security documents, counter-terrorism training, and intelligence analysis is eerily reminiscent of the warning George Orwell described in his seminal work – 1984.[4] “The purpose of Newspeak was…to make all other modes of thought impossible…by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meaning”[5] This policy is the “Ostrich Complex,” a synonym for Jihad Denial Syndrome (JDS).[6] [7]

Both the Bush and Obama administrations have effectively ascribed to a “see no evil” policy when it comes to Islam.[8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] The problem is that “words convey reality,” and it is our duty as military officers to be connected to reality.[20] Our oath requires us to “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic…”.[21] Yet this administration has tasked us to focus on the euphemistic “violent extremists”, which aside from being woefully ambiguous, ignores those who may not meet the narrow definition of violent extremists – yet still meet the broader threshold of being enemies.[*][22]

In 2004, The 9/11 Commission Report identified the enemy as “twofold: al Qaeda, a stateless network of terrorists that struck us on 9/11; and a radical ideological movement in the Islamic world, inspired in part by al Qaeda, which has spawned terrorist groups and violence across the globe.”[23] It went on to note that “ Islamists consider Islam to be as much a religion as an ‘ideology.’”[24] In spite of this, President Obama “and his subordinates, in consultation with advisors from Islamist organizations [like the Muslim Brotherhood], have purged training materials used to instruct national security agents of information deemed to be unflattering of Islam.”[25]

In December 2014 , the Commanding General of a key organization leading the fight against the Islamic State – Special Operations Command Central (SOCCENT) – admitted, “We do not understand the movement, and until we do, we are not going to defeat it. We have not defeated the idea. We do not even understand the idea.”[26] Major General Nagata was speaking of the Islamic State, the rebranded name for al Qaeda in Iraq – an offshoot of what is now called “core al Qaeda.”[27] Regardless, almost a decade and a half after the slaughter of almost 3,000 Americans, this is inexcusable.

Although there are multiple, competing interpretations of Islam, it is beyond the scope of this white paper to attempt to broker the differences, but rather to ensure we are able to address the aggressive, supremacist ideology that constitutes a continuing national security threat based on our enemies own statements claiming legal and theological accuracy and justification for their actions.[28]

“Does concern for multicultural or religious sensibilities justify relinquishing free speech in public discourse and scholarly endeavors?”[29] This report argues in the negative…and that, in fact, such an order to subordinate national security interests and intelligence analysis to anything less than a full and factual analysis constitutes dereliction of duty on behalf of the practitioner and an illegal order on behalf of the party responsible for issuing the order, policy or regulation.[30] [31]

The Problem

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” – George Santayana[32]

“Today there are two great threats facing the survival of the modern liberal West. The first is its exaggerated confidence in the power of reason;the second is its profound underestimation of the forces of fanaticism.” – Lee Harris, The Suicide of Reason[33]

We have faced a totalitarian, supremacist ideology bent on world domination before.[34] Adolf Hitler told us what his goal was in Mein Kampf when it was published in 1926.[35] [36] The problem was, almost no one believed him. And people could not imagine the depths of evil of which the Nazi regime was capable. In fact, the word “genocide” was not invented until 1944.[37] Hitler said to the German people, “‘I offer you struggle, danger and death,’ and as a result a whole nation flung itself at his feet.”[38] Effectively, so too did Muhammad – by his words and actions.[39][40]

Some will find the comparison of Nazi ideology to Islamic ideology offensive. This warrants further exploration. Dr. Bill Warner, Center for Study of Political Islam, has analyzed the anti-Semitism in Mein Kampf (7%), the Meccan Koran (1%), the Medinan Koran (16.9%), Sahih al-Bukhari (8.9%) and the Sira (12%).[41] Overall, the trilogy of Islamic texts averages 9.3% anti-Semitic content – clearly more anti-Semitic than Mein Kampf – especially when total word count is considered. [42] With respect to violence, only 5.6% of the Hebrew Bible is dedicated to violence.[43] By comparison, 9% of the Koran, 21% of the Hadith of Bukhari, and 67% of the Sira are dedicated to violent jihad. [44] The complete Islamic trilogy is 31% dedicated to political violence. [45]

And it’s not just a matter of an academic analysis of the doctrine. Words and declarations precede actions. We effectively ignored al Qaeda’s fatwa that constituted a declaration of war – despite the first World Trade Center Bombing in 1993, the attacks on our embassies in Africa and the deadly attack on the USS Cole – until 9/11.[46]

According to Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, “The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians…until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It is beyond the scope of this paper to explain the concept of progressive revelation with respect to the Qur’an, but suffice it to say that Qur’an 4:89 “Slay them wherever you find them” remains a commandment from Allah that is fully in effect and applies to all Muslims for all times (as does Qur’an 9:29, and 9:5’s “Sword Verse” for that matter).[47]

“Militant Islam may actually pose an existential threat to the United States. At a minimum, it constitutes a formidable strategic threat.”[48] Despite the onslaught of Islamic inspired terrorism, the Ostrich Complex manifested itself visibly just last week, when the Obama Administration released its final National Security Strategy.[49] The only mention of Islam is to “reject the lie that we are at war with Islam.” [50] There was no mention of the doctrine of jihad or sharia law. Yet a study of Islamic doctrine and the proclamations of the jihadists attacking us, makes it clear that Islam is the justification for those attacks.[51] In the jihadists’ minds, it is clear that they are at war with us.

The problem is: how can you defeat an enemy you cannot name? How can you know and understand an enemy you are prohibited from analyzing? This prohibition subverts the intelligence analysis process and leaves us strategically blind to the enemy.[52]

In 2009, during one of his first major foreign policy speeches overseas, President Obama declared “And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”[53] A review of the U.S. Constitution reveals no such duty.[54] But the President had set the tone and effectively the policy for his administration with respect to Islam when he said those words in 2009. And so doing, we see that “the abuse of political power is fundamentally connected with the sophistic abuse of the word.”[55]

As Josef Pieper warned, “the general public is being reduced to a state where people not only are unable to find out about the truth but also become unable even to search for the truth because they are satisfied with deception and trickery that have determined their convictions, satisfied with a fictitious reality created by design through the abuse of language.”[56] So too is our National Security apparatus is being subverted by this policy.

The problem is partially rooted in a misunderstanding of our own Constitution, which affords religious protections under the First Amendment.[†] This is understandable because “Many people confuse politics and religion.”[57] However, Islam is not just a religion – it is a complete civilizational alternative that includes a legal, political, economic, social and military doctrine known as shariah law.[58] As comprehensively explained in the Muslim Brotherhood’s Explanatory Memorandum, [59] the strategy for subverting the US Constitution to comport with shariah law is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” which calls for “eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”[60] This makes it clear that although the Muslim Brotherhood varies in ways and means from al Qaeda and the Islamic State, their ends – the end state – remain the same.

Although religion is only a portion of Islam, shariah makes it is impossible to separate Mosque and State in Islam.[61] “The religion of Islam is what a Muslim does to go to paradise and avoid hell. Political Islam determines the treatment of unbelievers and the governance of Muslims.”[62] It is the political focus on non-believers that raises the national security interests. Were the religious and the political not inseparable in Islam, we would remain unconcerned with what we would deem to be the strictly religious aspects of Islam. The scope of the problem is exacerbated by the fact that 61% of the Qur’an, 75% of the Sira and 20% of the Hadith is dedicated to the political. [63] This is why David Yerushalmi argued that “the active and purposeful pursuit of Shariah in the U.S. has implications for the federal criminal law of sedition (notably Title 18, Section 2385 of the U.S. Code),” where Jewish law, Christian dogmas and Catholic canon do not.”[64]

Background

Perhaps the most high profile case of Islamic suppression of free speech (before the attack on Charlie Hebdo)[65] was the fatwa[‡] that constituted a death sentence against Salman Rushdie as a result of his publishing The Satanic Verses.[66] [67] 25 years after the original fatwa was issued calling for his death, it was renewed.[68]

But the Islamic war on free speech dates back to the time of Muhammad himself when in 624 he first started ordering the assassination of poets who mocked him (Al-Nadr bin al-Harith,[69] Uqba bin Abu Muayt,[70] Asma bint Marwan,[71] Abu Afak,[72] Kab bin al-Ashraf,[73] [74] Ibn Sunayna,[75] a one-eyed Bedouin,[76] and one of Abdullah bin Katal’s two singing-girls. [77] [78])[79] For those unfamiliar with Islamic jurisprudence, it warrants pointing out that the first source is the Qur’an, the second is the example of Muhammad – who the Qur’an cites is the model for Muslims to emulate. Hence the significance of these events.

In addition to physical threats of violence, Islam also employs jihad of the pen. As an example, much of the academic aversion to discuss Islam honestly can be attributed to the aggressive tone of Edward Said’s Orientalism that amounts to intellectual terrorism as a result of “spraying charges of racism, imperialism and Eurocentrism from a moral high ground.”[80] [81] If only Ibn Warraq’s seminal Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said’s Orientalism were as well read in academic circles.[82]

On October 19th, 2011, in order to advance their efforts to silence critical examination of Islam in relation to the threat, a number of Muslim groups sent an open letter to John Brennan, who was then serving as Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and Deputy National Security Advisor.[83] In it, they accused “the federal government’s use of biased, false and highly offensive training materials about Muslims and Islam” and demanded a purge of the offensive training materials from the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security and the DoD.[84]

That same month, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Homeland Defense Strategy and Force Planning Jose Mayorga formally requested that the Director of the Joint Staff task the “Combatant Commands, Services, National Guard Bureau and Component Commands” to determine the criteria for instructors on “countering violent Islamic extremism.”[85] After that tasking did not have a sufficiently chilling effect on “offensive” counterterrorism training, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey himself signed a letter further reiterating his concern about “ideas, beliefs, and actions that are…disrespectful of the Islamic religion.” And that the review should ensure that programs exhibit “cultural sensitivity, respect for religion and intellectual balance…”[86] [87]

In so doing, Chairman Dempsey violated his own duty to the American Public when he silenced those who would honestly analyze the threat.[88] His actions placed the ideology of multiculturalism over his responsibilities as an officer in the US Military who has sworn an oath of office,[89] despite his duties as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.[90] It appears as if his primary concern was not with American values and security, but rather with not offending the Muslim world. [91]

It is a shame General Dempsey has failed to heed the advice of his predecessor, General Pete Pace, who warned:

“I say you need to get out and read what our enemies have said. Remember Hitler. Remember he wrote Mein Kampf. He said in writing exactly what his plan was, and we collectively ignored that to our great detriment. Now, our enemies have said publicly on film, on the Internet, their goal is to destroy our way of life. No equivocation on their part.”[92] [93]

Or for that matter, General George Washington, who prognosticated, “If the freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”[94]

Bad Actors

Two of the organizations leading the efforts to subvert our ability to even discuss Islam in the context of National Security are the Muslim Brotherhood and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). The United Arab Emirates (UAE) named both the Muslim Brotherhood and the CAIR as designated terrorist organizations.[95] [96] Additionally, CAIR has been extensively linked with Hamas – a U.S. designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO).[97] [98] [99]

The Muslim Brotherhood has been extensively documented as a terrorist organization,[100] [101] and was banned in Egypt in 1948, and is now once again outlawed in Egypt.[102] Additionally, the Muslim Brotherhood has been designated as a terrorist organization by Egypt,[103] [104] Russia, [105] [106] Syria,[107] Saudi Arabia[108] and the United Arab Emirates.[109] [110][111] The 9/11 Commission Report recognized the Muslim Brotherhood as a principle ideological inspiration for al Qaeda.[112]

The actions of these two organizations (Muslim Brotherhood & their front group – CAIR) in particular, I will argue – as Andrew McCarthy did in his conviction against Omar Abdel Rahman (the “Blind Sheik”) – constitutes seditious conspiracy,[§] that is “a confederation to wage war against the United States.”[113] [114]

A Judicial Watch Special Report titled “U.S. Government Purges of Law Enforcement Training Material Deemed ‘Offensive’ to Muslims” extensively documents the history of the purge within the Department of Justice.[115] Which begs the questions as to why the Pentagon is listening to Hamas-linked and designated terrorist organizations?[116]

Can you imagine a scenario where, during World War II, if Nazis complained to us about our analyzing Mein Kampf or the Enigma machine, we would have stopped?[117] Or where we would have appointed Nazi party members or open supporters and advocates to senior leadership positions within the Executive Branch departments or as special assistants to the President?[118][119] [120] It would have been insane to fight a war that way.

And yet that is exactly what we are doing now with this policy and this administration. Islamic doctrine, as codified in the Qur’an, Hadith, Sira and sharia law, is the Enigma machine with which we can decode the actions and intentions of the threat. But Islamic law prohibits non-Muslims from even purchasing the Qur’an.[121]

The reality that Islam currently has over a billion adherents creates a tremendous apprehension about the possibility that these adherents follow an ideology that is rooted in an aggressive, totalitarian, supremacist doctrine bent on world domination. Even if President Obama is correct when he states that “99.9% of Muslims” reject that interpretation of Islam, that still leaves over a million jihadists committed to global Islamic reign.[122] And polls show that number is actually much higher than what the President is portraying.[123] It is that fear [of the possibility that there are over a million people that ascribe to a violent ideology] that allows the lie – of Islam as a religion of peace – to live. As David Horowitz said, “A lie grounded in human desire is too powerful for reason to kill.”[124]

In fact, the size of Islam’s followership is one of the arguments used by Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers simultaneously as both evidence of Islam’s validity and an implied threat.[125] But behind that argument is a logical fallacy – the bandwagon –that holds that an ideology has credence because many people ascribe to it.[126] And more importantly, the size of Islam’s adherents exponentially increases the severity of the danger from the ideology spreading.

As Thomas Paine said, “I prefer peace. But, if there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.”[127] The problem is, “It is simply delusional to think there is no correlation between what a person believes and how they are likely to act – as delusional as it is to think there is no correlation between Islam’s doctrinal summons to violence and Islamic terrorism.”[128]

Recommendations

“In political warfare, the weapons are words.” – David Horowitz[129]

Ideally, the U.S. Government would reverse the policy to ban the examination of the same Islamic doctrine that our declared enemy says they follow. Recognizing that this administration will not reverse this policy leaves national security professional with a tremendous ethical dilemma. If we are obsessed with political correctness, policies, and promotions, we are negligent in our highest duty: to support and defend American lives.[130]

As Gary Hull discussed in Mohammad: The Banned Images:

“In the battle between open discourse and terrorist intimidation, the immediate philosophic issue is: how does one settle competing claims? Such claims cannot be avoided and are inherent in living in a social setting. … Fundamentally, there are only two methods by which to settle such claims: by reference to persuasion, debate, arguments – i.e. by appealing to reason – or by knives, guns, and bombs – i.e., by reference to the threat or actual initiation of physical force.”[131]

Right now, our options are limited to challenging the status quo or violating our professional oaths, not to mention professional canons. We should continue to conduct personal professional development through extensive reading of both primary Islamic source material, e.g. the Qur’an,[132] Sahih al-Bukhari (specifically Volume 4, Book 56[133] and Volume 9, Appendix III[134]), the Sira,[135] the Reliance of the Traveller,[136] War and Peace in the Law of Islam,[137] The Quranic Concept of War[138] and Freedom of Expression in Islam[139]; secondary source material that predate political correctness, like Moslems: Their Beliefs, Practices, and Politics[140] or shun political correctness, like The Suicide of Reason[141]; books by counter jihadists like Raymond Ibrahim,[142] Robert Spencer,[143] [144] Stephen Coughlin,[145] [146] Frank Gaffney,[147] the Team B2,[148] Walid Phares,[149] and Brigitte Gabriel,[150]; as well as books written by apostates like Ibn Warraq,[151] [152] [153] [154], Ayaan Hirsi Ali,[155] [156] [157] Nonie Darwish,[158] [159][160] and Wafa Sultan.[161]

Others outside the Executive Branch, specifically the Legislative Branch and the press, can continue to press the Administration for information about the actions they are taking and to expose the ill-advised and ill-guided policies being forced on the Executive Branch. In this respect, articles exposing Administration, supported by information gained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and lawsuits can assist in righting this ship.

Once Chairman Dempsey leaves this summer, we can work towards educating the new Chairman about the nature of the threat – both foreign and domestic – and push to have him rescind or supersede Chairman Dempsey’s purge letter. [162] [163] We can encourage the new Chairman to update professional reading lists to include primary Islamic source materials as well as the politically incorrect books that nonetheless accurately identify, assess, and diagnose the threat. Additionally, we should review and update our policies and training in accordance with the recommendations of the US Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee in accordance with their special report A Ticking Time Bomb[164] regarding the Fort Hood attack, rather than the politically correct report produced for the Federal Bureau of Investigation[165] and the Department of Defense’s report, which only mentions Islam once, and that reference was buried in a footnote.[166] Despite Secretary Gates’ guidance, this has not been done.[167]

Regardless of the results of the Presidential election in 2016, we must push the new administration to designate both the Muslim Brotherhood and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as Foreign Terrorist Organizations. During the Holy Land Foundation trial, Judge Solis directly associated CAIR with a designated terrorist organization.[168] As previously mentioned, this has already been done by Egypt,[169] [170] Russia, [171] [172] Syria,[173] Saudi Arabia[174] and the United Arab Emirates[175] [176] [177] – and we should follow their leads in this case. This may be no easy task depending on who wins the White House, given that CAIR has already started attempting to manipulate the 2016 Republican Presidential candidates publically.[178] [179]

One of the ways to eliminate political correctness from intelligence analysis would be to hold National Security professionals and Intelligence Analysis products to a legal standard. As Andrew McCarthy explains in his book, Willful Blindness:

“Trials have been a priceless elucidation of alarming truths. A trial is a crucible like no other. Political correctness and sloganeering melt away. … [Jurors] have to be told a story that comports with reality, or they won’t convict the person whose fate lies in their hands. A trial is not an exercise in rhetoric or spin. You don’t get to make blithe pronouncements – that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, that jihadists are a bare fringe distorting the true faith, or that terrorists acted because of poverty, alienation or, needless to say, Israel. You actually have to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt. You have to depict the world as it is, not as we wish it were.”[180]

Finally, we can determine if my political heresy has been the result of some blend of xenophobia and conspiracy theories, or if it is the result of an honest intellectual development that can be replicated and shared throughout the National Security apparatus, and if so, how.[181]

Conclusion

“War is a mere continuation of policy by other means.” – Clausewitz[182]

“Politics is war conducted by other means.” – David Horowitz[183]

We, as military officers, have failed to treat linguistics – the war of words – with the level of importance to which it deserves. As summarized in Lawfare: The War Against Free Speech:

“The war against Islamism is as much a war of ideas as it is a physical battle, and therefore the dissemination of information in the free world is paramount. The manipulation of Western court systems, the use of Western “hate speech laws” and other products of political correctness to destroy the very principles that democracies stand for, must be countered.

Unfortunately Islamist lawfare is beginning to limit and control public discussion of Islam, particularly as it pertains to comprehending the threat posed by Islamic terrorist entities. As such, the Islamist lawfare challenge presents a direct and real threat not only to our constitutional rights, but also to our national security.”[184]

Paraphrasing from Muhammad: the Banned Images:

“We need to re-examine our commitment to free expression. When an institution such as the Executive Branch needs to suppress scholarly work and legitimate intelligence analysis because of the theoretical possibility of violence or the offended feelings of a select group, it grants legitimacy to censorship and casts serious doubts on our commitment to freedom of expression, and more importantly – our commitment to winning this trans-generational war. The failure to defend our right to examine threat doctrine, as promulgated by the enemy, emboldens those who would attack us and undermines our national security. It is time for the Chairman, the President and the Congress to exercise moral and intellectual leadership.”[185]

“The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” [186] Just as “Mein Kampf’s existence denied the free world the excuse of ignorance”,[187] so too does the Qur’an,[188] Sahih al-Bukhari,[189] [190] the Sira[191] and Islamic law[192] itself deny us the excuse of ignorance about the trans-national, trans-generational, totalitarian, supremacist, genocidal threat we face from Islam today.

If we do not study the threat, we won’t be able to accurately distinguish friend from foe and hence, ultimately lose the ability to defeat the enemy. The challenge is finding a way to understand the evil that motivates totalitarians like al Qaeda, the Islamic State, the Muslim Brotherhood and their ilk, while still being able to leverage those Muslim leaders, nations and populations who actively support the United States in this war against supremacist, totalitarian jihadism – from King Abdullah II of Jordan,[193] and President al-Sisi of Egypt,[194] to Malala.[195]

“Mundus vult decipi”[196]

Notes

[*] enemy. (13c) 1. One who opposes or inflicts injury on another; an antagonist. 2. A opposing military force. 3. A state with which another state is at war. — Also termed public enemy. 4. A person possessing the nationality of the state with which one is at war. — Also termed enemy subject. 5. A foreign state that is openly hostile to another whose position is being considered.

Source: Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Ed.)

hostility. (15c) 1. A state of enmity between individuals or nations. 2. An act or series of acts displaying antagonism. 3. (usu. pl.) Acts of war. Source: Joint Publication 1-02 Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms

enemy combatant — In general, a person engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners during an armed conflict.  Also called EC.  Source: DoD Directive 2310.01E

[†] “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Source: U.S. Constitution.

[‡]The author of The Satanic Verses, a text written, edited, and published against Islam, against the Prophet of Islam, and against the Koran, along with all the editors and publishers aware of its contents, are condemned to capital punishment. I call on all valiant Muslims wherever they may be in the world to execute this sentence without delay, so that no one henceforth will dare insult the sacred beliefs of the Muslims.” – Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Source: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~owend/I/islam/fatwa.html

[§] Seditious Conspiracy: If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384

[1] Obama, Barack. “Statement by the President on ISIL.” The White House. September 10, 2014. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/09/10/statement-president-isil-1.

[2] Goebbels, Joseph. “Joseph Goebbels: On the “Big Lie”” Joseph Goebbels On the “Big Lie” Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/goebbelslie.html.

[3] McCarthy, Andrew C. Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad. New York: Encounter Books, 2008. 105.

[4] Orwell, George. Animal Farm and 1984. New York: Harcourt, 2003. 373-385.

[5] Orwell, George. Animal Farm and 1984. New York: Harcourt, 2003. 373.

[6] Rodgers, Guy. “Jihad Denial Syndrome.” TheHill. June 24, 2010. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/105243-jihad-denial-syndrome.

[7] Limbaugh, David. “Obama’s Jihad-denial Syndrome.” WND. September 17, 2012. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/obamas-jihad-denial-syndrome/.

[8] Spencer, Robert. “Is the Pentagon Waking Up?” Jihad Watch. December 14, 2005. Accessed February 11, 2015. http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/12/is-the-pentagon-waking-up.

[9] Fitton, Thomas. “U.S. Government Purges of Law Enforcement Training Material Deemed “Offensive” to Muslims.” Judicial Watch. December 5, 2013. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/JWSRGovtPurgeAndActiveMeasures5Dec2013.pdf.

[10] “Words That Work and Words That Don’t: A Guide for Counterterrorism Communication.” Investigative Project on Terrorism. March 14, 2008. Accessed February 11, 2015. http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/127.pdf.

[11] Gertz, Bill. “Inside the Ring.” Washington Times. January 4, 2008. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jan/4/inside-the-ring-8-34302/.

[12] “Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole Speaks at the Department’s Conference on Post 9/11 Discrimination.” The US Department of Justice. October 11, 2011. Accessed February 11, 2015. http://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/deputy-attorney-general-james-m-cole-speaks-department-s-conference-post-911.

[13] “Obama Administration Pulls References to Islam from Terror Training Materials, Official Says.” Yahoo! News. October 21, 2011. Accessed February 11, 2015. http://news.yahoo.com/obama-administration-pulls-references-islam-terror-training-materials-044605689.html.

[14] Lopez, Claire. “Muslim Brotherhood Takes Charge of FBI Counterterrorism Training” ClarionProject.org. April 25, 2012. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/muslim-brotherhood-takes-charge-fbi-counterterrorism-training.

[15] Dempsey, Martin E. “Martin Dempsey’s Letter Calling for Review of Military Education and Training Curriculum.” The New York Times. April 24, 2012. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/25/us/Review-of-Military-Education-Training-Curriculum.html.

[16] Poole, Patrick. “A Detailed Look at ‘the Purge’ of U.S. Counter-terrorism Training by the Obama Administration.” The Blaze. March 26, 2014. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2014/03/26/a-detailed-look-at-the-purge-of-u-s-counter-terrorism-training-by-the-obama-administration/.

[17] Rusin, David. “Problems in the U.S. Military: Denying Islam’s Role in Terror.” Middle East Forum. Spring 2013. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://www.meforum.org/3485/us-military-islam.

[18] Cavanugh, Tim. “DHS CRCL CVE Training – Dos and Donts.” Scribd. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://www.scribd.com/doc/141998997/DHS-CRCL-CVE-Training-Dos-and-Donts.

[19] “Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims.” Department of Homeland Security. January 1, 2008. Accessed February 11, 2015. http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/126.pdf.

[20] Pieper, Josef. Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power. San Francisco, Calif.: Ignatius Press, 1992. 15.

[21] “Oath of Commissioned Officers.” Oath of Commissioned Officers. August 1, 1959. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.army.mil/values/officers.html.

[22] Obama, Barack. “Strategic Implementation Plan for Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism In The United States.” White House. December 1, 2011. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/sip-final.pdf.

[23] Kean, Thomas H. The 9/11 Commission Report. Washington, DC: [National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States], 2004. 363.

[24] Kean, Thomas H. The 9/11 Commission Report. Washington, DC: [National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States], 2004. 562.

[25] McCarthy, Andrew C. “The Articles of Impeachment.” In Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment, 152, 223-224. New York: Encounter Books, 2014.

[26] Schmitt, Eric. “In Battle to Defang ISIS, U.S. Targets Its Psychology.” The New York Times. December 28, 2014. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/29/us/politics/in-battle-to-defang-isis-us-targets-its-psychology-.html.

[27] Schmitt, Eric. “In Battle to Defang ISIS, U.S. Targets Its Psychology.” The New York Times. December 28, 2014. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/29/us/politics/in-battle-to-defang-isis-us-targets-its-psychology-.html.

[28] McCarthy, Andrew C. “The Articles of Impeachment.” In Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment, 152, 223-224. New York: Encounter Books, 2014. 221.

[29] Hull, Gary. Muhammad: The “banned” Images. Mesa, Ariz.: Voltaire Press, 2009. 13.

[30] United States Code, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 47 (The Uniform Code of Military Justice).

[31] (Coughlin, Stephen. Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad. Washington DC: Center for Security Policy, 2015.)

[32] “George Santayana.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://www.iep.utm.edu/santayan/.

[33] Harris, Lee. The Suicide of Reason: Radical Islam’s Threat to the Enlightenment. New York: Basic Books, 2007. xxi.

[34] Orwell, George. “Review of Mein Kampf.” Carnegie Council. March 1, 1940. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://worldview.carnegiecouncil.org/archive/worldview/1975/07/2555.html/_res/id=sa_File1/v18_i007-008_a010.pdf.

[35] Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1999. xv.

[36] Orwell, George. “Review of Mein Kampf.” Carnegie Council. March 1, 1940. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://worldview.carnegiecouncil.org/archive/worldview/1975/07/2555.html/_res/id=sa_File1/v18_i007-008_a010.pdf.

[37] Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1999. xv.

[38] Orwell, George. “Review of Mein Kampf.” Carnegie Council. March 1, 1940. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://worldview.carnegiecouncil.org/archive/worldview/1975/07/2555.html/_res/id=sa_File1/v18_i007-008_a010.pdf.

[39] Al-Bukhari, Imam. “Sahih Al-Bukhari (9 Vol. Set).” Islam Future. November 25, 2012. Accessed February 10, 2015. https://islamfuture.wordpress.com/2012/11/25/sahih-al-bukhari-9-vol-set/.

[40] Al-Bukhari, Imam. “Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Verse 2797.” Future Islam. Accessed February 10, 2015. https://futureislam.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/sahih-al-bukhari-volume-4-ahadith-2738-3648.pdf. 52.

“I would love to be martyred in Allah’s Cause and the come back to life and then get martyred, and then come back to life again and then get martyred.”

[41] Warner, Bill. ”  Anti-Jew Text in Trilogy.” Center for the Study of Political Islam. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://www.cspipublishing.com/statistical/TrilogyStats/Amt_anti-Jew_Text.html.

[42] Warner, Bill. ”  Anti-Jew Text in Trilogy.” Center for the Study of Political Islam. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://www.cspipublishing.com/statistical/TrilogyStats/Amt_anti-Jew_Text.html.

[43] Warner, Bill. Factual Persuasion: Changing the Mind of Islam’s Supporters. Center for the Study of Political Islam, 2011. 30-31.

[44] Warner, Bill. Factual Persuasion: Changing the Mind of Islam’s Supporters. Center for the Study of Political Islam, 2011. 30-31.

[45] Warner, Bill. Factual Persuasion: Changing the Mind of Islam’s Supporters. Center for the Study of Political Islam, 2011. 30-31.

[46] “The 9/11 Commission Report.” The 9/11 Commission Report; January 1, 2004. Accessed October 9, 2014. http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf.

[47] Ibn Naqib Al-Misri, Ahmad, and Noah Ha Mim Keller. “Justice: The Objectives of Jihad.” In Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law ʻUmdat Al-salik, 599-602. Rev. ed. Beltsville, MD, U.S.A.: Amana Publications, 1999.

[48] McCarthy, Andrew C. Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad. New York: Encounter Books, 2008. 309.

[49] Obama, Barack. “National Security Strategy.” The White House. February 6, 2015. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2015_national_security_strategy_2.pdf.

[50] Obama, Barack. “National Security Strategy.” The White House. February 6, 2015. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2015_national_security_strategy_2.pdf.

[51] Ibrahim, Raymond. The Al Qaeda Reader. New York: Doubleday, 2007.

[52] (Coughlin, Stephen. Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad. Washington DC: Center for Security Policy, 2015.)

[53] Obama, Barack. “Remarks by the President at Cairo University, 6-04-09.” The White House. June 4, 2009. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-cairo-university-6-04-09.

[54] “The Constitution of the United States.” The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. September 17, 1787. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html.

[55] Pieper, Josef. Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power. San Francisco, Calif.: Ignatius Press, 1992. 32.

[56] Pieper, Josef. Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power. San Francisco, Calif.: Ignatius Press, 1992. 34-35.

[57] Horowitz, David. The Art of Political War: And Other Radical Pursuits. Dallas, Tex.: Spence, 2000. 47.

[58] Lopez, Clare. Shariah: The Threat to America : An Exercise in Competitive Analysis. Washington, DC: Center for Security Policy Press, 2010. 2.

[59] Akram, Mohammed. “An Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group In North America.” Investigative Project on Terrorism. May 22, 1991. Accessed February 11, 2015. http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/445.pdf.

[60] Akram, Mohammed. “An Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group In North America.” Investigative Project on Terrorism. May 22, 1991. Accessed February 11, 2015. http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/445.pdf.

[61] Ibn Naqib Al-Misri, Ahmad, and Noah Ha Mim Keller. “Apostacy from Islam.” In Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law ʻUmdat Al-salik, 596-598. Rev. ed. Beltsville, MD, U.S.A.: Amana Publications, 1999.

[62] Warner, Bill. Islam 101. Center for the Study of Political Islam, 2008. 13-14.

[63] Warner, Bill. Islam 101. Center for the Study of Political Islam, 2008. 14.

[64] Yerushalmi, David. “Shariah vs. Jewish Law.” FrontPage Magazine. October 10, 2008. Accessed February 11, 2015. http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=32710.

[65] “Charlie Hebdo Attack: Three Days of Terror.” BBC News. January 14, 2015. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30708237.

[66] Rushdie, Salman. The Satanic Verses. New York, N.Y.: Viking Penguin, 1989.

[67] Rushdie, Salman. “The Satanic Verses.” Salman Rushdie. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://www.salman-rushdie.com/blog/the-satanic-verses/.

[68] Graaf, Mia. “Iranian Mullah Revives Death Fatwa against Salman Rushdie over Satanic Verses 25 Years after It Was Issued.” Mail Online. February 16, 2014. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2560683/Iranian-mullah-revives-death-fatwa-against-Salman-Rushdie-Satanic-Verses-25-years-issued.html.

[69] Guillaume, A. The Life of Muhammad. Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1987. 136; 163, 236; 181, 262; 308, 458.

[70] Khan, Muhammad Muhsin. “Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4.” Darussalam. Accessed February 9, 2015. https://futureislam.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/sahih-al-bukhari-volume-4-ahadith-2738-3648.pdf. No. 2934.

[71] Guillaume, A. The Life of Muhammad. Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1987. 675-76; 995-96.

[72] Guillaume, A. The Life of Muhammad. Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1987. 675, 995.

[73] Guillaume, A. The Life of Muhammad. Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1987. 364-369.

[74] Khan, Muhammad Muhsin. “Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 5.” Darussalam. Accessed February 9, 2015. https://futureislam.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/sahih-al-bukhari-volume-5-ahadith-3649-4473.pdf. No. 4037.

[75] Guillaume, A. The Life of Muhammad. Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1987. 369, 534.

[76] Guillaume, A. The Life of Muhammad. Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1987. 674-675.

[77] Guillaume, A. The Life of Muhammad. Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1987. 550-51, 819.

[78] Khan, Muhammad Muhsin. “Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4.” Darussalam. Accessed February 9, 2015. https://futureislam.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/sahih-al-bukhari-volume-4-ahadith-2738-3648.pdf.

No. 3044.

[79] Arlandson, James. “Muhammad’s Dead Poets Society: The Assassination of Satirical Poets in Early Islam.” Answering Islam. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/dead_poets.htm.

[80] Said, Edward W. Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books, 1979.

[81] Warraq, Ibn. Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said’s Orientalism. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2007. 18.

[82] Warraq, Ibn. Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said’s Orientalism. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2007. 18.

[83] “CAIR Letter to the Honorable John Brennan.” Thomas More. October 19, 2011. Accessed February 11, 2015. http://www.thomasmore.org/sites/default/files/files/Letter_to_John_Brennan_19_OCT_2011%20(3).pdf.

[84] “CAIR Letter to the Honorable John Brennan.” Thomas More. October 19, 2011. Accessed February 11, 2015. http://www.thomasmore.org/sites/default/files/files/Letter_to_John_Brennan_19_OCT_2011%20(3).pdf.

[85] Mayorga, Jose S. “Screening Process for Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Trainers and Speakers.” The Daily Caller. October 11, 2011. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Joint-Staff-Action-Trainers.pdf.

[86] Dempsey, Martin E. “Martin Dempsey’s Letter Calling for Review of Military Education and Training Curriculum.” The New York Times. April 24, 2012. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/25/us/Review-of-Military-Education-Training-Curriculum.html.

[87] Spencer, Robert. “Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Orders Military to Purge All Training Material of Truth about Islam.” Jihad Watch. May 3, 2012. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/05/exclusive-senior-us-general-orders.

[88] Hull, Gary. Muhammad: The “banned” Images. Mesa, Ariz.: Voltaire Press, 2009. 7.

[89] “Oath of Commissioned Officers.” Oath of Commissioned Officers. August 1, 1959. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.army.mil/values/officers.html.

[90] “10 U.S. Code § 163 – Role of Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff.” 10 U.S. Code § 163. Accessed February 11, 2015. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/163.

[91] Hull, Gary. Muhammad: The “banned” Images. Mesa, Ariz.: Voltaire Press, 2009. 8.

[92] “Extemporaneous Remarks on Our National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.” Lecture, keynote speech presented at National Defense University from General Peter Pace, USMC, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, Fort McNair, December 1, 2005.

[93] Coughlin, Stephen. “To Our Great Detriment: Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad (with Appendices).” Assyrian International News Agency. July 1, 2007. Accessed February 11, 2015. http://www.aina.org/reports/iwesaj.pdf.

[94] Hull, Gary. Muhammad: The “banned” Images. Mesa, Ariz.: Voltaire Press, 2009. 10.

[95] “UAE Cabinet Approves List of Designated Terrorist Organisations, Groups.” Emirates News Agency. November 15, 2014. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.wam.ae/en/news/emirates-international/1395272478814.html.

[96] Mauro, Ryan. “UAE Doubles Down on Designation of CAIR as Terrorists | Clarion Project.” Clarion Project. November 26, 2014. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/uae-doubles-down-designation-cair-terrorists.

[97] “Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).” Discover the Networks. February 9, 2015. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=6176.

[98] “Foreign Terrorist Organizations.” U.S. Department of State. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm.

[99] “5th Circuit Upholds Holy Land Foundation Convictions.” Investigative Project on Terrorism. December 7, 2011. Accessed February 12, 2015. http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/1851.pdf.

[100] “Muslim Brotherhood.” Discover the Networks. February 10, 2015. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=6386.

[101] Abdallah, Essam. “Islamist Lobbies’ Washington War on Arab and Muslim Liberals.” The Investigative Project on Terrorism. February 16, 2012. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://www.investigativeproject.org/3453/islamist-lobbies-washington-war-on-arab.

[102] Fahim, Kareem. “Egypt, Dealing a Blow to the Muslim Brotherhood, Deems It a Terrorist Group.” The New York Times. December 25, 2013. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/26/world/middleeast/egypt-calls-muslim-brotherhood-a-terrorist-group.html?_r=0.

[103] Nasralla, Shadia. “Egypt Designates Muslim Brotherhood as Terrorist Group.” Reuters. December 25, 2013. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/25/us-egypt-explosion-brotherhood-idUSBRE9BO08H20131225.

[104] Abdelaziz, Salma, and Steve Almasy. “Egypt’s Interim Cabinet Officially Labels Muslim Brotherhood a Terrorist Group – CNN.com.” CNN. December 25, 2013. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/25/world/africa/egypt-muslim-brotherhood-terrorism/.

[105] “Отключены или не поддерживаются активные сценарии (JavaScript).” Устаревший или неподдерживаемый веб-обозреватель. February 12, 2003. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://base.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc;base=EXP;n=257852.

[106] “Russia Names ‘terrorist’ Groups.” BBC News. July 28, 2006. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5223458.stm.

[107] “Assad Says ‘factors Not in Place’ for Syria Peace Talks.” Hurriyet Daily News. October 21, 2013. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/assad-says-factors-not-in-place-for-syria-peace-talks.aspx?pageID=238&nID=56611&NewsCatID=352.

[108] Ajbaili, Mustapha. “Saudi: Muslim Brotherhood a Terrorist Group.” Al Arabiya News. March 7, 2014. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/03/07/Saudi-Arabia-declares-Muslim-Brotherhood-terrorist-group.html.

[109] Shahine, Alaa, and Glen Carey. “U.A.E. Supports Saudi Arabia Against Qatar-Backed Brotherhood.” Bloomberg.com. March 9, 2014. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-03-09/u-a-e-supports-saudi-arabia-against-qatar-backed-brotherhood?cmpid=yhoo.

[110] “UAE Cabinet Approves List of Designated Terrorist Organisations, Groups.” Emirates News Agency. November 15, 2014. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.wam.ae/en/news/emirates-international/1395272478814.html.

[111] Mauro, Ryan. “UAE Doubles Down on Designation of CAIR as Terrorists | Clarion Project.” Clarion Project. November 26, 2014. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/uae-doubles-down-designation-cair-terrorists.

[112] “The 9/11 Commission Report.” The 9/11 Commission Report. p.51; January 1, 2004. Accessed October 9, 2014. http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf.

[113] McCarthy, Andrew C. Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad. New York: Encounter Books, 2008. 272.

[114] Title 18, US Code, Section 2384.

[115] Fitton, Thomas. “U.S. Government Purges of Law Enforcement Training Material Deemed “Offensive” to Muslims.” Judicial Watch. December 5, 2013. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/JWSRGovtPurgeAndActiveMeasures5Dec2013.pdf

[116] Spencer, Robert. “Why Is the Pentagon Listening to Hamas-Linked CAIR?” PJ Media. July 31, 2012. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://pjmedia.com/blog/why-is-the-pentagon-listening-to-hamas-linked-cair/.

[117] Smith, Michael. “Breaking the Enigma Code Was the Easiest Part of the Nazi Puzzle.” The Telegraph. November 15, 2014. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/11231608/Breaking-the-Enigma-code-was-the-easiest-part-of-the-Nazi-puzzle.html.

[118] Rossomondo, John. “Egyptian Magazine: Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrates Obama Administration.” The Investigative Project on Terrorism. January 3, 2013. Accessed February 12, 2015. http://www.investigativeproject.org/3869/egyptian-magazine-muslim-brotherhood-infiltrates.

[119] “The Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrates Obama Administration.” FrontPage Magazine. March 28, 2013. Accessed February 12, 2015. http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/frontpagemag-com/the-muslim-brotherhood-infiltrates-obama-administration/.

[120] Henry, Devin. “Bachmann: Investigate the Reach of the Muslim Brotherhood.” MinnPost. July 10, 2012. Accessed February 12, 2015. http://www.minnpost.com/dc-dispatches/2012/07/bachmann-investigate-reach-muslim-brotherhood.

[121] Ibn Naqib Al-Misri, Ahmad, and Noah Ha Mim Keller. “Justice: The Objectives of Jihad.” In Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law ʻUmdat Al-salik, 379. Rev. ed. Beltsville, MD, U.S.A.: Amana Publications, 1999.

[122] “Obama: This “Medieval Interpretation Of Islam” Is Rejected By “99.9%” Of Muslims, Not A “Religious War”” CNN. February 1, 2015. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/02/01/obama_this_medieval_interpretation_of_islam_is_rejected_by_999_of_muslims_not_a_religious_war.html.

[123] Secrest, Barry. “Conservative Refocus News.” Stunning Poll Shows Obama’s 99.9 % Figure for Peaceful Muslims Worldwide False. February 6, 2015. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://www.conservativerefocus.com/blog5.php/2015/02/06/stunning-poll-shows-obama-s-99-9-figure-for-peaceful-muslims-worldwide-false.

[124] Horowitz, David. The Art of Political War: And Other Radical Pursuits. Dallas, Tex.: Spence, 2000. 192.

[125] Enein, Youssef H. Militant Islamist Ideology Understanding the Global Threat. Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press, 2010. 203.

[126] “Your Logical Fallacy Is Bandwagon.” Thou Shalt Not Commit Logical Fallacies. Accessed February 9, 2015. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon.

[127] Paine, Thomas. “The Crisis.” Ushistory.org. December 23, 1776. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.ushistory.org/PAINE/crisis/c-01.htm.

[128] McCarthy, Andrew C. Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad. New York: Encounter Books, 2008. 178.

[129] Horowitz, David. The Art of Political War: And Other Radical Pursuits. Dallas, Tex.: Spence, 2000. 39.

[130] McCarthy, Andrew C. Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad. New York: Encounter Books, 2008. 13.

[131] Hull, Gary. Muhammad: The “banned” Images. Mesa, Ariz.: Voltaire Press, 2009. 9.

[132] Ali, Abdullah Yusuf. The Qurʼan. Elmhurst, N. Y.: Tahrike Tarsile Qurʼan, 2005.

[133] Al-Bukhari, Imam. “Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4.” Future Islam. Accessed February 10, 2015. https://futureislam.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/sahih-al-bukhari-volume-4-ahadith-2738-3648.pdf.

[134] Al-Bukhari, Imam. “Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 9.” Future Islam. Accessed February 10, 2015. https://futureislam.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/sahih-al-bukhari-volume-9-ahadith-6861-7563.pdf.

[135] Guillaume, A. The Life of Muhammad. Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1987.

[136] Ibn Naqib Al-Misri, Ahmad, and Noah Ha Mim Keller. Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law ʻUmdat Al-salik. Rev. ed. Beltsville, MD, U.S.A.: Amana Publications, 1999.

[137] Khadduri, Majid. War and Peace in the Law of Islam. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1955.

[138] Malik, S. K. The Quranic Concept of War. Lahore: Wajidalis, 1979.

[139] Kamali, Mohammad Hashim. Freedom of Expression in Islam. Rev. ed. Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society, 1997.

[140] Oussani, Gabriel, and Hilaire Belloc. Moslems: Their Beliefs, Practices, and Politics. Ridgefield, CT: Roger A. McCaffrey Pub., 1936.

[141] Harris, Lee. The Suicide of Reason: Radical Islam’s Threat to the Enlightenment. New York: Basic Books, 2007.

[142] Ibrahim, Raymond. The Al Qaeda Reader. New York: Doubleday, 2007.

[143] Spencer, Robert. The Truth about Muhammad: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion. Washington, DC: Regnery Pub., 2006.

[144] Spencer, Robert. Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam Is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs. Washington, DC: Regnery Pub., 2008.

[145] Coughlin, Stephen C. “‘To Our Great Detriment’: Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad.” Assyrian International News Agency. July 1, 2007. Accessed February 12, 2015. http://www.aina.org/reports/iwesaj.pdf.

[146] (Coughlin, Stephen. Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad. Washington DC: Center for Security Policy, 2015.)

[147] Gaffney, Frank J. War Footing: 10 Steps America Must Take to Prevail in the War for the Free World. Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press, 2006.

[148] Lopez, Clare. Shariah: The Threat to America: An Exercise in Competitive Analysis. Washington, DC: Center for Security Policy Press, 2010.

[149] Phares, Walid. Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against America. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.

[150] Gabriel, Brigitte. They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2008.

[151] Warraq, Ibn. Why I Am Not a Muslim. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1995.

[152] Warraq, Ibn. Which Koran?: Variants, Manuscripts, Linguistics. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2011.

[153] Warraq, Ibn. Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak out. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2003.

[154] Warraq, Ibn. Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said’s Orientalism. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2007.

[155] Ali, Ayaan Hirsi. Infidel. New York: Free Press, 2007.

[156] Ali, Ayaan Hirsi. The Caged Virgin: An Emancipation Proclamation for Women and Islam. New York: Free Press, 2006.

[157] Ali, Ayaan Hirsi. Nomad: From Islam to America–a Personal Journey through the Clash of Civilizations. New York: Free Press, 2010.

[158] Darwish, Nonie. Cruel and Usual Punishment. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2008.

[159] Darwish, Nonie. The Devil We Don’t Know: The Dark Side of Revolutions in the Middle East. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley, 2012.

[160] Darwish, Nonie. Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel, and the War on Terror. New York, N.Y.: Sentinel, 2006.

[161] Sultan, Wafa. A God Who Hates: The Courageous Woman Who Inflamed the Muslim World Speaks out against the Evils of Islam. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2009.

[162] Dempsey, Martin E. “Martin Dempsey’s Letter Calling for Review of Military Education and Training Curriculum.” The New York Times. April 24, 2012. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/25/us/Review-of-Military-Education-Training-Curriculum.html.

[163] Mayorga, Jose S. “Screening Process for Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Trainers and Speakers.” The Daily Caller. October 11, 2011. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Joint-Staff-Action-Trainers.pdf.

[164] “A Ticking Time Bomb: Counterterrorism Lessons from the U.S. Government’s Failure to Prevent the Fort Hood Attack.” Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. February 1, 2011. Accessed February 11, 2015. http://www.hsgac.senate.gov//imo/media/doc/Fort_Hood/FortHoodReport.pdf.

[165] Webster, William H. “William H Webster Commission Final Report on FBI Counter Intelligence and the Events at Fort Hood.” Federal Bureau of Investigation. July 19, 2012. Accessed February 11, 2015. http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/final-report-of-the-william-h.-webster-commission.

[166] West, Jr., Togo, and Vern Clark. “Protecting the Force: Lessons Learned from Fort Hood.” Department of Defense. January 1, 2010. Accessed February 11, 2015. http://www.defense.gov/pubs/pdfs/DOD-ProtectingTheForce-Web_Security_HR_13Jan10.pdf.

[167] Gates, Robert. “Final Recommendations of the Ft. Hood Follow On Review.” Investigative Project on Terrorism. August 18, 2010. Accessed February 11, 2015. http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/1363.pdf.

[168] “US v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, Et Al.: The Investigative Project on Terrorism.” The Investigative Project on Terrorism. Accessed February 12, 2015. http://www.investigativeproject.org/case/65.

[169] Nasralla, Shadia. “Egypt Designates Muslim Brotherhood as Terrorist Group.” Reuters. December 25, 2013. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/25/us-egypt-explosion-brotherhood-idUSBRE9BO08H20131225.

[170] Abdelaziz, Salma, and Steve Almasy. “Egypt’s Interim Cabinet Officially Labels Muslim Brotherhood a Terrorist Group – CNN.com.” CNN. December 25, 2013. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/25/world/africa/egypt-muslim-brotherhood-terrorism/.

[171] “Отключены или не поддерживаются активные сценарии (JavaScript).” Устаревший или неподдерживаемый веб-обозреватель. February 12, 2003. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://base.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc;base=EXP;n=257852.

[172] “Russia Names ‘terrorist’ Groups.” BBC News. July 28, 2006. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5223458.stm.

[173] “Assad Says ‘factors Not in Place’ for Syria Peace Talks.” Hurriyet Daily News. October 21, 2013. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/assad-says-factors-not-in-place-for-syria-peace-talks.aspx?pageID=238&nID=56611&NewsCatID=352.

[174] Ajbaili, Mustapha. “Saudi: Muslim Brotherhood a Terrorist Group.” Al Arabiya News. March 7, 2014. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/03/07/Saudi-Arabia-declares-Muslim-Brotherhood-terrorist-group.html.

[175] Shahine, Alaa, and Glen Carey. “U.A.E. Supports Saudi Arabia Against Qatar-Backed Brotherhood.” Bloomberg.com. March 9, 2014. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-03-09/u-a-e-supports-saudi-arabia-against-qatar-backed-brotherhood?cmpid=yhoo.

[176] “UAE Cabinet Approves List of Designated Terrorist Organisations, Groups.” Emirates News Agency. November 15, 2014. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.wam.ae/en/news/emirates-international/1395272478814.html.

[177] Mauro, Ryan. “UAE Doubles Down on Designation of CAIR as Terrorists | Clarion Project.” Clarion Project. November 26, 2014. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/uae-doubles-down-designation-cair-terrorists.

[178] “CAIR Open Letter to 2016 Republican Presidential Candidates.” Council on American-Islamic Relations. January 26, 2015. Accessed February 11, 2015. https://www.cair.com/images/pdf/Open-Letter-to-2016-Republican-Presidential-Candidates.pdf.

[179] “CAIR Letter Urges GOP Presidential Candidates to Engage Muslim Voters, Reject Islamophobia – CAIR.” Council on American-Islamic Relations. January 26, 2015. Accessed February 11, 2015. https://www.cair.com/press-center/press-releases/12823-cair-urges-gop-presidential-candidates-to-engage-muslim-voters.html.

[180] McCarthy, Andrew C. Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad. New York: Encounter Books, 2008. 314-315.

[181] Horowitz, David. The Art of Political War: And Other Radical Pursuits. Dallas, Tex.: Spence, 2000. 189.

[182] “Clausewitz: War as Politics by Other Means.” Online Library of Liberty. Accessed February 12, 2015. http://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/clausewitz-war-as-politics-by-other-means.

[183] Horowitz, David. The Art of Political War: And Other Radical Pursuits. Dallas, Tex.: Spence, 2000. 53.

[184] Goldstein, Brooke, and Aaron Eitan Meyer. Lawfare: The War against Free Speech ; a First Amendment Guide for Reporting in an Age of Islamist Lawfare. Washington, D.C.: Center for Security Policy, 2011. 153.

[185] Hull, Gary. Muhammad: The “banned” Images. Mesa, Ariz.: Voltaire Press, 2009. 48.

[186] Goebbels, Joseph. “Joseph Goebbels: On the “Big Lie”” Joseph Goebbels On the “Big Lie” Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/goebbelslie.html.

[187] Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1999. xxi.

[188] Ali, Abdullah Yusuf. The Qurʼan. Elmhurst, N. Y.: Tahrike Tarsile Qurʼan, 2005.

[189] Al-Bukhari, Imam. “Sahih Al-Bukhari (9 Vol. Set).” Islam Future. November 25, 2012. Accessed February 10, 2015. https://islamfuture.wordpress.com/2012/11/25/sahih-al-bukhari-9-vol-set/.

[190] “Translation of Sahih Muslim.” Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/muslim/.

[191] Guillaume, A. The Life of Muhammad. Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1987.

[192] Ibn Naqib Al-Misri, Ahmad, and Noah Ha Mim Keller. Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law ʻUmdat Al-salik. Rev. ed. Beltsville, MD, U.S.A.: Amana Publications, 1999.

[193] Laub, Karen, and Mohammed Daraghmeh. “King Abdullah II Thrusts Jordan to the Center of War on Islamic State Militant Group.” US News. February 6, 2015. Accessed February 11, 2015. http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2015/02/06/jordans-king-thrusts-country-to-center-of-islamic-state-war.

[194] Ibrahim, Raymond. “Egypt’s Sisi: Islamic “Thinking” Is “Antagonizing the Entire World”” Raymond Ibrahim. January 1, 2015. Accessed February 11, 2015. http://www.raymondibrahim.com/from-the-arab-world/egypts-sisi-islamic-thinking-is-antagonizing-the-entire-world/.

[195] “The Nobel Peace Prize for 2014.” The Nobel Peace Prize 2014. October 10, 2014. Accessed February 11, 2015. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2014/press.html.

[196] Pieper, Josef. Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power. San Francisco, Calif.: Ignatius Press, 1992. 25-26.

Obama’s Transparent Presidency

January 13, 2017

Obama’s Transparent Presidency, Front Page MagazineCaroline Glick, January 13, 2017

barack_obama_discusses_ukraine_with_national_security_staff

[During Obama’s Cario speech], he turned his attention to Israel and the Palestinians. Obama opened this section by presenting his ideological framework for understanding the conflict. Israel he insisted was not established out of respect of the Jews’ national rights to their historic homeland. It was established as a consolation prize to the Jews after the Holocaust.

That is, Israel is a product of European colonialism, just as Iran and Hamas claim.

In contrast, the Palestinians are the indigenous people of the land. They have been the primary victims of the colonial West’s post-Holocaust guilty conscience. Their suffering is real and legitimate.

Hamas’s opposition to Israel is legitimate, he indicated. Through omission, Obama made clear that he has no ideological problem with Hamas – only with its chosen means of achieving its goal.

***********************************

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post

President Barack Obama promised that his would be the most transparent administration in US history.

And the truth is, it was. At least in relation to his policies toward the Muslim world, Obama told us precisely what he intended to do and then he did it.

A mere week remains of Obama’s tenure in office.

But Obama remains intent on carrying on as if he will never leave power. He has pledged to continue to implement his goals for the next week and then to serve as the most outspoken ex-president in US history.

In all of Obama’s recent appearances, his message is one of vindication. I came. I succeeded. I will continue to succeed. I represent the good people, the people of tomorrow. My opponents represent the Manichean, backward past. We will fight them forever and we will prevail.

Tuesday Obama gave his final interview to the Israeli media to Ilana Dayan from Channel 2’s Uvda news magazine. Dayan usually tries to come off as an intellectual. On Tuesday’s show, she cast aside professionalism however, and succumbed to her inner teenybopper. Among her other questions, she asked Obama the secret to his preternatural ability to touch people’s souls.

The only significant exchange in their conversation came when Dayan asked Obama about the speech he gave on June 4, 2009, in Cairo. Does he still stand by all the things he said in that speech? Would he give that speech again today, given all that has since happened in the region, she asked.

Absolutely, Obama responded.

The speech, he insisted was “aspirational” rather than programmatic. And the aspirations that he expressed in that address were correct.

If Dayan had been able to put aside her hero worship for a moment, she would have stopped Obama right then and there. His claim was preposterous.

But, given her decision to expose herself as a slobbering groupie, Dayan let it slide.

To salvage the good name of the journalism, and more important, to understand Obama’s actual record and its consequences, it is critical however to return to that speech.

Obama’s speech at Cairo University was the most important speech of his presidency. In it he laid out both his “aspirational” vision of relations between the West and the Islamic world and his plans for implementing his vision. The fundamentally transformed world he will leave President-elect Donald Trump to contend with next Friday was transformed on the basis of that speech.

Obama’s address that day at Cairo University lasted for nearly an hour. In the first half he set out his framework for understanding the nature of the US’s relations with the Muslim world and the relationship between the Western world and Islam more generally. He also expressed his vision for how that relationship should change.

The US-led West he explained had sinned against the Muslim world through colonialism and racism.

It needed to make amends for its past and make Muslims feel comfortable and respected, particularly female Muslims, covered from head to toe.

As for the Muslims, well, September 11 was wrong but didn’t reflect the truth of Islam, which is extraordinary. Obama thrice praised “the Holy Koran.” He quoted it admiringly. He waxed poetic in his appreciation for all the great contributions Islamic civilization has made to the world – he even made up a few. And he insisted falsely that Islam has always been a significant part of the American experience.

In his dichotomy between two human paths – the West’s and Islam’s – although he faulted the records of both, Obama judged the US and the West more harshly than Islam.

In the second half of his address, Obama detailed his plans for changing the West’s relations with Islam in a manner that reflected the true natures of both.

In hindsight, it is clear that during the seven and a half years of his presidency that followed that speech, all of Obama’s actions involved implementing the policy blueprint he laid out in Cairo.

He never deviated from the course he spelled out.

Obama promised to withdraw US forces from Iraq regardless of the consequences. And he did.

He promised he would keep US forces in Afghanistan but gave them no clear mission other than being nice to everyone and giving Afghans a lot of money. And those have been his orders ever since.

Then he turned his attention to Israel and the Palestinians. Obama opened this section by presenting his ideological framework for understanding the conflict. Israel he insisted was not established out of respect of the Jews’ national rights to their historic homeland. It was established as a consolation prize to the Jews after the Holocaust.

That is, Israel is a product of European colonialism, just as Iran and Hamas claim.

In contrast, the Palestinians are the indigenous people of the land. They have been the primary victims of the colonial West’s post-Holocaust guilty conscience. Their suffering is real and legitimate.

Hamas’s opposition to Israel is legitimate, he indicated. Through omission, Obama made clear that he has no ideological problem with Hamas – only with its chosen means of achieving its goal.

Rather than fire missiles at Israel, he said, Hamas should learn from its fellow victims of white European colonialist racists in South Africa, in India, and among the African-American community.

Like them Hamas should use nonviolent means to achieve its just aims.

Obama’s decision attack Israel at the UN Security Council last month, his attempts to force Israel to accept Hamas’s cease-fire demands during Operation Protective Edge in 2014, his consistent demand that Israel renounce Jewish civil and property rights in united Jerusalem, in Judea and Samaria, his current refusal to rule out the possibility of enabling another anti-Israel resolution to pass at the Security Council next week, and his contempt for the Israeli Right all are explained, envisioned and justified explicitly or implicitly in his Cairo speech.

One of the more notable but less discussed aspects of Obama’s assertion that the Palestinians are in the right and Israel is in the wrong in the speech, was his embrace of Hamas. Obama made no mention of the PLO or the Palestinian Authority or Fatah in his speech. He mentioned only Hamas – the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, which shares the Brotherhood’s commitment to annihilating Israel and wiping out the Jewish people worldwide.

Sitting in the audience that day in Cairo were members of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood.

Then-Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak rightly viewed Obama’s insistence that the brothers be invited to his address as a hostile act. Due to this assessment, Mubarak boycotted the speech and refused to greet Obama at the Cairo airport.

Two years later, Obama supported Mubarak’s overthrow and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood to replace him.

Back to the speech.

Having embraced the Muslim Brotherhood and its Palestinian branch, branded Israel a colonial implant and discredited the US’s moral claim to world leadership, Obama turned his attention to Iran.

Obama made clear that his intention as president was to appease the ayatollahs. America he explained had earned their hatred because in 1953 the CIA overthrew the pro-Soviet regime in Iran and installed the pro-American shah in its place.

True, since then the Iranians have done all sorts of mean things to America. But America’s original sin of intervening in 1953 justified Iran’s aggression.

Obama indicated that he intended to appease Iran by enabling its illicit nuclear program to progress.

Ignoring the fact that Iran’s illegal nuclear program placed it in material breach of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Obama argued that as an NPT signatory, Iran had a right to a peaceful nuclear program. As for the US and the rest of the members of the nuclear club, Obama intended to convince everyone to destroy their nuclear arsenals.

And in the succeeding years, he took a hacksaw to America’s nuclear force.

After Obama’s speech in Cairo, no one had any cause for surprise at the reports this week that he approved the transfer of 116 tons of uranium to Iran. Likewise, no one should have been surprised by his nuclear deal or by his willingness to see Iran take over Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. No one should be surprised by his cash payoffs to the regime or his passivity in the face of repeated Iranian acts of aggression against US naval vessels in the Strait of Hormuz.

Everything that Obama has done since he gave that speech was alluded to or spelled out that day.

Certainly, nothing he has done was inconsistent with what he said.

The consequences of Obama’s worldview and the policies he laid out in Cairo have been an unmitigated disaster for everyone. The Islamic world is in turmoil. The rising forces are those that Obama favored that day: The jihadists.

ISIS, which Obama allowed to develop and grow, has become the ideological guide not only of jihadists in the Middle East but of Muslims in the West as well. Consequently it has destabilized not only Iraq and Syria but Europe as well. As the victims of the Islamist massacres in San Bernardino, Boston, Ft. Hood, Orlando and beyond can attest, American citizens are also paying the price for Obama’s program.

Thanks to Obama, the Iranian regime survived the Green Revolution. Due to his policies, Iran is both the master of its nuclear fate and the rising regional hegemon.

Together with its Russian partners, whose return to regional power after a 30-year absence Obama enabled, Iran has overseen the ethnic cleansing and genocide of Sunnis in Syria and paved the way for the refugee crisis that threatens the future of the European Union.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s Islamist leader, was a principle beneficiary of Obama’s admiration of Islamism. Erdogan rode Obama’s wave to destroy the last vestiges of the secular Turkish Republic.

Now he is poised to leave NATO in favor of an alliance with Russia.

Obama and his followers see none of this. Faithful only to their ideology, Obama and his followers in the US and around the world refuse to see the connection between the policies borne of that ideology and their destructive consequences. They refuse to recognize that the hatred for Western civilization and in particular of the Jewish state Obama gave voice to in Cairo, and his parallel expression of admiration for radical Islamic enemies of the West, have had and will continue to have horrific consequences for the US and for the world as a whole.

Cairo is Obama’s legacy. His followers’ refusal to acknowledge this truth means that it falls to those Obama reviles to recognize the wages of the most transparent presidency in history. It is their responsibility to undo the ideological and concrete damage to humanity the program he first unveiled in that address and assiduously implemented ever since has wrought.