Posted tagged ‘Obama’s America’

Satire | Make Trump Shut Up. It’s Patriotic!

March 18, 2016

Make Trump Shut Up. It’s Patriotic! Dan Miller’s Blog, March 18, 2016

(The views expressed in this article (aside from those espoused by my imaginary guest author, with whom no rational person agrees) are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

trump-assault

Editor’s note: This is a guest post by my (imaginary) guest author, the Very Honorable Ima Librul, Senator from the great State of Confusion Utopia. He is a founding member of Climate Change Causes Everything Bad, a charter member of President Obama’s Go For it Team, a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Chairman of the Meretricious Relations Subcommittee. He is also justly proud of his expertise in the care and breeding of green unicorns, for which his Save the Unicorns Foundation has received substantial Federal grants. We are honored to have a post of this caliber by a quintessential Librul such as the Senator. Without further delay, here is the Senator’s article, followed by my own observations. 

As any fool knows, saying things that upset folks is destructive to our peace and tranquility. No patriot would do that. As the Boston Globe observed on March 17th, true patriots can not and should not permit it.

Donald Trump slams protesters at his rallies as “thugs” but, as usual, the unhinged GOP presidential front-runner is dead wrong:

They’re patriots.

. . . .

With Trump nearly sweeping this week’s primaries, those rallies will become more hostile toward anyone pushing against his hideous rhetoric. Yet those patriots will still come, not just because they oppose Trump but for the love of their country which is being shoved toward the abyss. As poet Adrienne Rich wrote in “An Atlas of the Difficult World”:

A patriot is one who wrestles/ for the soul of her country/ as she wrestles for her own being.

Trump has been endorsed by Will Quigg, 48, a grand dragon of the Ku Klux Klan. So has Hillary Clinton, but that’s as different as night is from day; we all know that she is not a racist. The KKK endorsement of Trump shows, beyond dispute, that he is a vile racist. That’s why he despises our President and everything for which we stand.

Trump reminds me of the hateful Britainophobes who mocked Native Americans by wearing their quaint native garb to throw precious tea, violently, into Boston Harbor. For shame!

Trump hatefully complains that Islam is not the religion of peace and that since it is a violent religion Muslims should not be permitted even to visit the United States until it can be determined which are peaceful and which are not. Hogwash! Muslims are just as peaceful as Methodists. They love little children more than Methodists, particularly little girls, and marry them at what Trump probably thinks is too early an age — often at the age of ten. It’s their culture, so there’s nothing wrong with it and we should respect it. Isn’t this a pretty little bride? She looks so happy!

668 (1)

Muslims don’t occupy a country that isn’t theirs like filthy Jews do in Palestine. They don’t try to take over mosques sacred to Islam.

 

 

Palestine, unlike Israel, does not practice apartheid. Although Israel has nukes, Iran recently promised not to develop nuclear weapons. Trump, despite his claims to be a master negotiator, would never have got that deal; Obama, a very modest person, did despite obstructions put in his path by Israel and some Republicans.

Not all Jews are bad, of course: a major Jewish group warned that Trump is dangerous. As noted in the immediately linked article, the warning

came amid an impassioned debate in the American Jewish community around Trump’s plans to address an audience of over 18,000 next Monday at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s annual policy conference.

Who knows what might happen if Trump were to address that group. Might he claim, as he often does, that the peaceful Palestinians, not Jews, are to blame for Israel’s continued occupation of Palestine? Perhaps some of his antisemitic bullies might assault members of the audience. They might bring not only knives but guns as well! Remember, President Obama warned against bringing even knives to a gun fight!

Trump complains that our borders are not “secure.” He is stupid, ignorant and just plays on the fear of other racists. Hillary Clinton knows that the borders are secure.

PHOENIX — The United States has done a “really good job” of securing the border between Arizona and Mexico, Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton said in an exclusive interview Thursday.

“I think we’ve done a really good job securing the border,” she said. “I think that those who say we haven’t are not paying attention to what was done the last 15 years under President (George W.) Bush and President (Barack) Obama.”

Clinton said the federal government has added both border officers and obstructions, while the number of people attempting to cross the border has dropped.

“Immigration from Mexico has dropped considerably,” she said. ”It’s just not happening anymore.”

Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, was speaking just days before a campaign event in Phoenix.

Lies, lies, lies. It’s lies all the way down for Trump

The protestors at Trump rallies do not want to silence him, as some far-right nuts have complained. They only want to make him stop saying things that offend them; there’s a big difference, as any fool knows. Like everyone else with two brain cells, we need our safe spaces and he violates our constitutional rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by refusing to let us have them. Even the music played at Trump rallies is authoritarian and disgusting. That’s why we attend and protest at Trump rallies.

Trump is Hitler. All Republican candidates for president have been Hitlers for many, many years. Hitlerism is the foul soup in which they are conceived, born and raised. It’s high time to throw out the soup and Republicans along with it. Hillary will do that, and more.

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

Editor’s comments

 

 

 

As a courtesy to Senator Librul, I inserted all of the links in his article. The presence of supporting links is about the only difference between his screed and those of Democrats and the Republican elite (but I repeat myself) disparaging Trump for stuff he has not done and does not do; for what they claim he is and not for what he is.

It’s high time for us to take America back from those who have been trying to destroy her. She belongs to We the People, not to the Democrat or Publican party bosses. Never forget.

 

 

Obama did not build our nation. Our ancestors did and it’s our inheritance.

 

 

For whom would the pioneers in the video vote were they alive now? Our “leaders” who sit in Washington, D.C., break their promises and take our money to finance their reelection campaigns so they can continue the process? Those who have weakened our nation and made her a second class world power? Those who elevate political correctness and multiculturalism above reality? Those who rewrite our history so that they can condemn it? I don’t think so. Which candidates do you think they would support?

crazed

 

Trump and the Left’s Accusations of Fascism

March 16, 2016

Trump and the Left’s Accusations of Fascism, Front Page MagazineBruce Thornton, March 16, 2016

trump

Donald Trump’s success in the primaries and his rhetoric have sparked troubled meditations about an awakening of fascist impulses among his supporters. Bret Stephens has drawn an analogy with the Thirties, “the last dark age of Western politics,” and compared Trump to Benito Mussolini. On the left, Dana Milbank, in a column titled “Trump Flirts with Fascism,” wrote about a campaign rally at which Trump was “leading supporters in what looked very much like a fascist salute,” a scene New York Times house-conservative David Brooks linked to the Nuremberg party rallies.

Much of the rhetoric that links Trump to fascism or Nazism is merely the stale ad Hitlerum fallacy used by progressives to demonize the candidate. They did the same thing when they called George W. Bush “Bushitler.” This slur reflects the hoary leftist dogma that conservatives at heart are repressed xenophobes and knuckle-dragging racists lusting for a messianic leader to restore their lost “white privilege” and punish their minority, immigrant, and feminist enemies. As such, the attack on Trump is nothing new or unexpected from a progressive ideology whose totalitarian inclinations have always had much more in common with fascism than conservatism does.

What Auden called the “low dishonest decade” of the Thirties, however, is indeed instructive for our predicament today, but not because of any danger of a fascist party taking root in modern America. Communism was (and in some ways still is) vastly more successful at infiltrating and shaping American political, cultural, and educational institutions than fascism ever was. But the same cultural pathologies that enabled both fascist and Nazi aggression still afflict us today. These pathologies and their malign effects are more important than the reasons for Trump’s popularity–– anger at elites, economic stagnation, and anti-immigrant passions–– that supposedly echo the “waves of fear and anger” of Auden’s Thirties.

The most important delusion of the Thirties still active today is the idealistic internationalism that had developed over the previous century. A world shrunk by new communication and transportation technologies and linked by global trade, internationalists argued, meant nations and peoples were becoming more alike. Thus they desired the same prosperity, political freedom, human rights, and peace that the West enjoyed. Interstate relations now should be based on this “harmony of interests,” and managed by non-lethal transnational organizations rather than by force. Covenants and treaties like the Hague and Geneva Conventions, and institutions like the League of Nations and the International Court of Arbitration, could peacefully resolve conflicts among nations through diplomatic engagement, negotiation, and appeasement.

The Preamble to the First Hague Convention (1899) captures the idealism that would compromise foreign policy in the Thirties. The Convention’s aims were “the maintenance of the general peace” and “the friendly settlement of international disputes.” This goal was based on the “solidarity which unites the member of the society of civilized nations” and their shared desire for “extending the empire of law and of strengthening the appreciation of international justice.” Two decades later, the monstrous death and destruction of World War I should have shattered the delusion of such “solidarity” existing even among the “civilized nations.” Despite that gruesome lesson, Europe doubled down and created the League of Nations, which failed to stop the serial aggression that culminated in World War II.

But the League wasn’t the only manifestation of naïve internationalism. The Locarno Treaty of 1925 welcomed Germany back into the community of nations with a seat on the League of Nations council. Nobel Peace prizes, and wish-fulfilling headlines like the New York Times’ “France and Germany Bar War Forever,” were all that resulted. The Kellogg-Briand pact of 1928 “condemn[ed] recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce[d] it as an instrument of national policy” in interstate relations. The signing powers asserted that “the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts . . . shall never be sought except by pacific means.”

All the future Axis Powers signed the treaty, and they all soon shredded these “parchment barriers.” In the next few years, Japan invaded Manchuria, Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland in gross violation of the Versailles Treaty, and Italy invaded Ethiopia. By the time Germany annexed Austria, and Neville Chamberlain’s faith in negotiation and appeasement handed Czechoslovakia to Hitler, all these treaties and conventions and conferences were dead letters, and the League of Nations was exposed as a “cockpit in the tower of Babel,” as Churchill suggested after the First World War.

However, such graphic and costly evidence showing the folly of “covenants without the sword,” as Hobbes put it, did not discredit this dangerous idealism over the following decades. Indeed, it lies behind the disasters of Obama’s foreign policy. Just consider his “outreach” to our enemies, his acknowledgement of our own “imperfections,” his reliance on toothless U.N. Security Council Resolutions, his preference for non-lethal economic sanctions to pressure adversaries, and his belief that negotiated settlements and agreements can achieve peace and good relations even with our fiercest enemies. All reflect the same failure to recognize that our adversaries in fact do not sincerely want to reach an agreement, for the simple reason they are not in fact “just like us,” and so they do not want peace and prosperity and good relations with their neighbors and the “world community.”

The catalogue of Obama’s failures is long and depressing. The “reset” with Russia and promise of “flexibility,” the empty “red line” threats against Bashar al Assad, the arrogant dismissal of a metastasizing ISIS as a “jayvee” outfit, the alienation of allies like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Israel, the cultivation of the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood, the ill-conceived overthrow of Muammar Ghaddafi, and the rhetoric of guilt and self-abasement are just the most noteworthy failures. The nuclear deal with Iran, of course, is the premier monument to this folly. Yet despite the increasing evidence of its futility­­––Iran’s saber-rattling in the Gulf, capture of U.S. military personnel, genocidal rhetoric, and testing of missiles in blatant violation of a U.N. Security Council resolution–– Obama still clings to this internationalist delusion.

A recent article in The Atlantic on Obama’s foreign policy shows, despite his protestations of hardheaded “realism,” that he has not learned from his failures. Thus he still thinks that the vigorous use of force is usually an unnecessary and dangerous mistake, and that verbal persuasion and diplomatic engagement are more effective. He also still believes that “multilateralism regulates [U.S.] hubris” of the sort that George W. Bush showed when he recklessly invaded Iraq, and that American foreign policy has frequently displayed.

Obama’s delusional faith in rhetoric, especially his own, comes through in his rationale for the infamous 2009 Cairo speech: “I was hoping that my speech could trigger a discussion, could create space for Muslims to address the real problems they are confronting—problems of governance, and the fact that some currents of Islam have not gone through a reformation that would help people adapt their religious doctrines to modernity.” The idea that Obama’s mere words could start a “discussion” that would transform 14-century-old religious doctrines fundamentally inimical to liberal democracy, human rights, and all the other Western goods we live by, is a fantasy. Obama’s self-regard recalls Neville Chamberlain’s boast after his meeting with Hitler at Bad Godesberg that he “had established some degree of personal influence with Herr Hitler.”

Or consider Obama’s take on Vladimir Putin:

He understands that Russia’s overall position in the world is significantly diminished. And the fact that he invades Crimea or is trying to prop up Assad doesn’t suddenly make him a player. You don’t see him in any of these meetings out here helping to shape the agenda. For that matter, there’s not a G20 meeting where the Russians set the agenda around any of the issues that are important.

A “player,” in Obama’s foreign policy universe, is a leader who uses “smart power” like diplomacy and negotiated deals, and recognizes that the use of force will backfire and lead to costly “quagmires.” As Secretary of State John Kerry suggested, Putin is using outdated “19th century” instruments of foreign policy like military force in a world that presumably has evolved beyond it.

In contrast, a genuine “player,” as Obama fancies himself, attends summits and conferences, such as the useless climate change conference in Paris, and “sets the agenda.” And like his rationale for the Cairo speech, as the leader of the world’s greatest power, his rhetoric alone can be a force for change. Thus just saying that Syria’s “Assad must go,” while doing nothing to achieve that end, is still useful, and refusing to honestly identify the traditional Islamic foundations of modern jihadism will build good will among Muslims and turn them against the “extremists.”

Meanwhile, Putin and Iran fight and bomb and kill in Syria and Iraq, and now they are the big “players” in a region that the U.S. once dominated, but that now serves the interests of Russia and Iran. I’m reminded of Demosthenes’ scolding of the Athenians for refusing to confront Phillip II of Macedon: “Where either side devotes its time and energy, there it succeeds the better––Phillip in action, but you in argument.”

In other words, for Obama as for Chamberlain, appeasing words rather than forceful deeds are the key to foreign policy––precisely the belief that led England to disastrously underestimate Hitler until it was too late. And that same belief has turned the Middle East into a Darwinian jungle of clashing tribes, sects, and nations.

Obama wraps his foreign policy of retreat in claims to “realist” calculations of America’s security and genuine interests, and buttresses his claim by citing his strategically inconsequential drone killings. But such rhetoric hides an unwillingness to risk consequential action and pay its political costs. And it reflects a commitment to the internationalist idealism that gives diplomatic verbal processes an almost magical power to transform inveterate enemies into helpful partners. Europe tried that in the Thirties, and it led to disaster. That’s a much more important lesson from that sorry decade’s history than the lurid fantasies about fascism coming to America on the wings of Trump’s rhetoric.

Left-Wing Groups Claim Victory, Fundraise Off Trump Protests

March 15, 2016

Left-Wing Groups Claim Victory, Fundraise Off Trump Protests, Washington Free Beacon, March 15, 2016

protest1Protestors march in Chicago before a rally with Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump / AP

Left-wing groups that have received money from the federal government and the MacArthur Foundation celebrated the disruption of Donald Trump’s rally in Chicago and are using the clashes to raise more money.

The progressive organizing group MoveOn.org, which boasts more than 8 million members nationwide, took partial credit for protests hours after a Trump rally was canceled in Chicago due to security concerns. Republicans who support Trump “should be on notice,” according to one MoveOn.org Political Action official.

“Mr. Trump and the Republican leaders who support him and his hate-filled rhetoric should be on notice after tonight’s events,” Ilya Sheyman, executive director of MoveOn.org Political Action, said in a statement hours after the clashes. “These protests are a direct result of the violence that has occurred at Trump rallies and that has been encouraged by Trump himself from the stage. Our country is better than the shameful, dangerous, and bigoted rhetoric that has been the hallmark of the Trump campaign.”

“To all of those who took to the streets of Chicago, we say thank you for standing up and saying enough is enough,” Sheyman said. “To Donald Trump, and the GOP, we say, welcome to the general election. Trump and those who peddle hate and incite violence have no place in our politics and most certainly do not belong in the White House.”

One day after this statement, Sheyman said it was “dishonest” to “scapegoat” progressive activists for the violence at the canceled Trump rally.

MoveOn.org, which was initially formed in 1998 to organize liberal opposition to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, receives financial support from liberal billionaire George Soros. Soros gave $1.46 million to MoveOn’s Voter Fund in 2004.

MoveOn has also taken money from a wide range of left-wing funds and foundations, including the Compton Foundation, the Shefa Fund, the Steven and Michelle Kirsch Foundation, and the Stern Family Fund.

The group raised nearly $20 million in 2012, $10 million in 2014, and has pulled in nearly $5 million for the 2016 elections to date, according to its most recent filings. MoveOn used the recent Trump protests in Chicago as another avenue of fundraising.

The group’s members voted overwhelmingly to back Bernie Sanders this election cycle. According to a release, 78.6 percent of MoveOn.org members voted to endorse Sanders, “shattering MoveOn records with most votes cast and largest margin of victory.”

The ANSWER (Act Now To Stop War and End Racism) Coalition, which has offices in 11 cities, including Chicago, also declared “victory” after the disruptions and called for protesters to “keep the fires going.”

“Large numbers of Latinos, Muslims, Black people, Asians, Arabs and whites stood together, out of necessity, to confront and defeat a great threat to the people. The threat is very real,” the group said in a press release following the events.

The group launched three days after September 11, 2001 with the intent of opposing military intervention following the terrorist attacks committed that day. It has since become involved in other political issues, including the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and has come under fire from numerous groups, including other anti-war groups, for its radical and anti-Zionist views.

ANSWER, which operates as a 501(c)3, has received funding from the Progress Unity Fund (PUF), a group founded in 2001 to “break down the barriers of divisiveness and discrimination that exist in the world, and replace them with a sense of solidarity.”

The Progress Unity Fund has provided hundreds of thousands in donations to ANSWER since its inception.

The Illinois Coalition of Immigrant and Refugee Rights is another organization involved in the Chicago protests. The group describes itself as “dedicated to promoting the rights of immigrants and refugees to full and equal participation in the civic, cultural, social, and political life of our diverse society.”

The group received a $450,000 grant from the Marguerite Casey Foundation in January 2016 for leadership development and network development, according to the foundation’s website.

The Chicago-based MacArthur Foundation, one of the nation’s largest independent foundations, giving hundreds of millions in donations to liberal organizations and causes every year, provided a $575,000 grant in 2014 to the organization to be used over the course of two years, according to its website.

The National Council of La Raza, the largest Latino activist organization in the United States, was also involved in the Trump protests.

La Raza gets two thirds of its funding from individuals and corporations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the American Express Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation. La Raza also receives funds from the United States government.

Cecilia Muñoz, the director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, previously served as La Raza’s senior vice president for the office of research, advocacy, and legislation.

Muñoz, who sat on the board of directors at Soros’s Open Society Institute before joining the White House, is married to human rights attorney Amit Pandya, a former counselor to the Open Society Institute.

After Muñoz joined President Obama’s team, funding from the government to La Raza nearly tripled, rising from $4.1 million to $11 million.

None of the groups returned a request for comment by press time.

New York museum gives children the chance to discover Muslim culture

March 5, 2016

New York museum gives children the chance to discover Muslim culture, Al-Arabiya, March 5, 2015

(Frau Merkel, et al, have provided an entire country in which to observe, and even participate in, Muslim culture. Please see also, Germany: Migrant Rape Crisis Worsens. — DM)

 

Muslim children's museumThe Children’s Museum of Manhattan on the Upper West Side has been turned into an indoor playground. (AFP)

“I think it’s a nice antidote to some of the other ways that people are talking about Muslim cultures, a diverse non-threatening culture rather than what is in the media all the time,” said British tourist Grania Brigden.

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

The United States may have seen an unprecedented anti-Muslim backlash in recent months, but one New York museum has challenged perceptions by teaching children about the wealth and diversity of Islamic culture from Michigan to China.

The Children’s Museum of Manhattan on the Upper West Side has been turned into an indoor playground where children can touch and experiment with artifacts of Muslim culture in a vibrant, colorful exhibition.

One little girl wraps a piece of Senegalese fabric around her middle like a sarong and wriggles around. “It’s lots of fun for dancing!” she says.

(The video won’t embed. Please click on the link below. — DM)

Other children in her class are sorting through Turkish ceramics or inhaling the rich aroma of spices from Zanzibar.

Called “America to Zanzibar,” the exhibition focuses on culture in Muslim communities, not religion itself, so the tenets and practices of Islamic doctrine have been left well alone.

“We don’t interpret the religion,” said Andrew Ackerman, executive director of the museum. “It’s about the people. It’s about how people that share a common belief express it so differently,” he added.

The 2016 race for the White House has been dominated by the rise of Republican frontrunner Donald Trump, a New York real estate mogul who has repeatedly bashed Muslims and advocated a ban on them entering the country.

Recent attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, California have heightened what Muslim Americans call an unprecedented backlash in a country increasingly fearful about the risk posed by the so-called Islamic State extremist group.

Ackerman says current events had nothing to do with the decision to mount the exhibition, which has been six years in the making.

His desire is to lift the lid on culture in Muslim countries that is either poorly understood in the United States or not represented at all.

“The challenge of this project is how do you represent so many different cultures,” said Ackerman. “How do you pick and choose what to show to give the biggest overview possible in a small space. That conversation was completely independent of any current events.”

One strong point of the exhibition is that it also focuses on Muslim heritage in the United States and not just on far-off countries.

‘Not just Syria’

Children can learn about the mosque in Dearborn, Michigan, a Tajik-inspired tea house in Colorado and Senegalese fabric sold in Harlem, New York.

A room is also dedicated to Muslim Americans gathering together memories, books, CDs and photographs.

“We really wanted to think about the American story, which is so much more diverse than the rest of the world,” said Ackerman, adding that New York is home to people from every Muslim country in the world.

“It’s very good. They are learning about another culture,” said second grade teacher Judith Espaillat of her class of children visiting the exhibition.

The word Muslim doesn’t mean much to Alex, one of her pupils, but he hasn’t been bored at all.

During the first week of the exhibition, which opened February 13, the museum welcomed more than 13,000 visitors despite exceptionally cold temperatures.

“They want to show that this culture is normal, not crazy,” said visitor Francesca Azzariti, an Italian living in New York.

Other than fabric and ceramics, the museum devotes one room to mosques and the wealth of their architectural tradition.

The exhibition also shows contributions by Muslim thinkers to science.

“I think it’s a nice antidote to some of the other ways that people are talking about Muslim cultures, a diverse non-threatening culture rather than what is in the media all the time,” said British tourist Grania Brigden.

“It’s nice to see the other elements, the food, the colors,” she said. “Islam in Africa, Asia, it’s not just Syria.”

The exhibition will run at least a year before possibly travelling to other cities within the United States. Intended for children, it can also offer an entry point for parents too.

“There are a lot of people who don’t see themselves as museum goers but they’ll come here, because it’s for the children,” said Ackerman. “If we can inspire curiosity as a museum, that’s what we go for.”

North Korea’s Sanctions Loophole

February 29, 2016

North Korea’s Sanctions Loophole, Wall Street Journal, February 28, 2016

Happy KimThis undated picture released from North Korea’s official Korean Central News Agency on February 27, 2016 shows North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un smiling during the inspection of the test-fire of a newly developed anti-tank guided weapon at an undisclosed location. PHOTO: KCNA VIA KNS/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

The Obama Administration is touting the latest United Nations sanctions as a milestone against North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. We’d like to believe it too, but a close look at the draft Security Council resolution offers many reasons to doubt.

The resolution would double the number of blacklisted North Korean individuals and state entities, adding Pyongyang’s atomic-energy and space agencies. Luxury goods banned from export to North Korea would grow to include watches, yachts and snowmobiles. A ban on sales of aviation fuel targets state-owned airline Air Koryo, while a ban on sales of rocket fuel targets Kim Jong Un’s missile program.

More significant are efforts to cut Pyongyang’s access to hard currency and smuggled weapons technology. The sanctions expand the list of banned arms and dual-use goods, and they require states to inspect all cargo transiting their territory to or from North Korea by sea, air or land. They would also squeeze North Korean mineral exports, including coal and iron ore, which in 2014 accounted for 53% of Pyongyang’s $2.8 billion in exports to China, per South Korean state figures.

Overall the blacklist of North Korean proliferators is growing by only 12 individuals and 20 entities to a total of 64; the U.N.’s former blacklist on Iran was far larger at 121. In any case, none of these matter if China won’t rigorously enforce them—which it has never done.

There are other loopholes and oversights. The nominal ban on North Korean mineral exports applies only to purchases that demonstrably fund illicit activities, rather than “livelihood purposes.” Yet money is fungible, so Chinese coal purchases excused on livelihood or humanitarian grounds will still channel hundreds of millions of dollars to the regime.

The sanctions also do nothing about the Chinese oil transfers that keep the Kim regime alive. Or Chinese purchases of textiles from mostly state-run North Korean factories that have quadrupled to $741 million a year since 2010 and recently ensnared Australian surf brand Rip Curl in a supply-chain controversy. Or the 50,000-plus North Korean laborers overseas, largely in China and Russia, earning some $230 million a year for their masters in Pyongyang.

U.S. officials say China has new incentive to back sanctions because it wants to block South Korea’s recent moves to deploy the U.S.-built Thaad missile-defense system. That may be why China wants to look cooperative, but the new sanctions aren’t enough to justify walking back on Thaad. China still views the North as a political buffer against South Korea, a thorn in the side of Japan and the U.S., and a diplomatic card to play at the U.N. So China has long played a double game of rhetorically deploring North Korea’s nuclear program while propping it up in practice.

The better way to squeeze the North is closer cooperation among Washington, Seoul and Tokyo to sanction Chinese banks that facilitate trade with Pyongyang. This worked a decade ago until the Bush Administration fell for more of China’s diplomatic promises. China won’t get serious about stopping North Korea until it sees that the U.S. and its allies are serious.

Immigration or an IPhone

February 25, 2016

Immigration or an IPhone, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, February 25, 2016

male-refugees

The public argument between Apple and the FBI over cracking the encryption on an iPhone used by the San Bernardino Muslim terrorists is one of those ongoing civil liberties debates that negotiate the terms on which we are asked to sacrifice our civil liberties for the sake of Muslim immigration.

We have already made a thousand accommodations and we will make a thousand more. There will be more databases, naked scanners, eavesdropping, vans that can see through walls, backdoors to every server, registrations, warrantless searches, interceptions and regulations. There will be heavily armed police on the streets. And then curfews and soldiers. These things exist in Europe. They’ll come here.

Some libertarians will argue that we should have none of this and no restrictions on immigration. That we should just shrug off each terror attack and move on with our lives.

Eventually though there will be a terror attack that we can’t shrug off and that can’t be minimized by using the cheap statistical trick of comparing Terror Attack X to the number of people who die every year from cancer. Or there will just be an endless parade of daily attacks, bombings, stabbings or shootings, as in Israel, which create a constant climate of terror that will preclude any hollow rhetoric about the number of people falling off ladders each year or getting struck by lightning.

Some hawks will cheer every terror fighting measure short of closing the door on the root cause of the problem. They would rather see every American wiretapped, strip searched and monitored every hour of the day then just stop the flow of Muslim terrorists into this country.

The encryption methods of an iPhone, like the question of how many ounces there are in your tiny bottle of mouthwash, would not be much of an issue, if Muslim migration did not make it one.

Terrorists adapt to the terrain. They use the native population as protective coloration. They can find a way to transform a shoe, a tube of toothpaste or instant messaging on a game console into a terror tool. Just as the left can ‘politicize’ everything, Muslim terrorists can ‘terrorize’ everything. When everything is a potential terrorist tool, then there can be no such thing as privacy or civil rights.

Muslim immigration is forcing us to constantly choose between our lives and our civil liberties. It’s a Catch 22 decision with no good choices. Terrorists push governments toward totalitarianism so that their own alternative totalitarian state starts to seem like a less terrible alternative. But the refusal to fight terrorism also makes the totalitarian state of the terrorists more viable.

With every Muslim terror attack, successful or only attempted, they win and we lose. The pressure of terror attacks discredit Western ideologies and worldviews, both on the right and the left. Each attack helps generate new converts for Islam and more political influence for Islamist organizations.

Vociferous debates over the choice between civil liberties and security make it seem as if we have to choose between our worldviews because something in our society is the problem. It isn’t.

We do not have an American terror network problem. The Amish aren’t using iPhones or obscure apps to coordinate terror attacks. We have a Muslim terror network problem. It’s not because of the Methodists that we have to weigh our mouthwash or take our shoes off and put them in a greasy plastic tray at the airport. It’s because 19 Muslims entered this country, hijacked our airplanes and murdered thousands of Americans. Guantanamo Bay is not an issue because Buddhists are at war with America. It’s an issue because Muslim terrorists are at war with America.

We do not have an iPhone encryption problem or a shoe problem or a mouthwash problem. We have a Muslim terror problem.

Whatever decision is made about iPhone encryption will not be the last word. The simple reality is that privacy carries too high a price as long as we have large numbers of people in this country who want to kill us in equally large numbers. If we want our privacy back, it’s not the FBI that is standing in our way. It’s the religious organizations that are paid to bring Muslim “refugees” to this country. It’s the liberal, libertarian and even conservative voices that think there is something wrong with pausing the mass migration of the group that is disproportionately responsible for our terror problem. It’s the media that would rather discuss anything and everything than discuss the problem we are really dealing with.

The source of this problem is not whether the FBI handled the iPhone correctly or whether Apple should be obligated to build a way for law enforcement to access its devices. These arguments would exist even without Muslim terrorism, but they would lack the same level of life and death urgency.

This is not an iOS problem. It’s an immigration problem.

The San Bernardino massacre by Muslim terrorists would not have happened without Muslim immigration. The security flaw here was not in the work of FBI agents or of Apple programmers, but of our immigration laws. Just as we cannot and will not intercept every single Muslim terrorist who finds a way to hide explosives in his underwear, shoes, soda or laptop, we will not ever be able to crack every single encrypted Muslim terrorist device. And their underwear bombs and encrypted iPhones would not be an issue if we did not have Muslim terrorists in America in the first place.

Instead of discussing the Islamic root cause, we put stress on our own competing institutions, technology providers face off with law enforcement, hawks and civil libertarians berate each other as if they were each part of the threat. But we are not the problem here. They are the problem.

The only backdoor that should be at issue here is the one that Muslim terrorists use to enter America. We don’t need to violate everyone’s rights to close it. We just need the political will to do the common sense thing and shut down the source of the threat. Either that or give up on our privacy.

Our choice is very simple. We can have external security or an internal police state. But neither of the above is not an option. We can have open borders that fill our country with criminals, but that means that eventually any livable middle class neighborhood will have a cop on every corner. We can have airport security for the people coming into this country. Or we can have airport security for everyone.

Ongoing Muslim migration makes a police state inevitable. But to avoid the perils of profiling and the appearance of discrimination, it will be a universal police state that will strip away rights from everyone without regard to guilt or innocence in the hopes of averting the next Muslim terror attack.

The only way to protect our lives and our freedoms from Muslim terrorism and its consequences is by shutting down Muslim immigration. If we fail to do this, then we will lose our lives and our liberties.

Obama Managed to Make Syria a Lot Messier

February 17, 2016

Obama Managed to Make Syria a Lot Messier, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, February 16, 2016

obama-wears-tan-suit-149481242256_6

Obama and Kerry are frantically touting a Syria ceasefire as the solution to the conflict. In reality, they’ve made the conflict much worse.

While Hillary Clinton was talking up a No Fly Zone, Russia entered Syria and enforced its own de facto No Fly Zone against the United States. Their bombing campaign has boosted the Iran-Assad-Hezbollah axis while beating back Sunni militias backed by Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

The Turks responded by shooting down a Russian jet. Obama threw in more anti-tank missiles. But a sustained bombing campaign does pay off. It’s what Obama refused to do against ISIS. But the Russians had no problem hitting Sunni opposition forces with one. They also don’t care about collateral damage. And while Obama and his proxies bleat about Russia being isolated and doomed, Putin set the terms of the proposed peace deal.

Obama’s willingness to switch to the side of the Shiite axis and accept them however only worsened the conflict for reasons ridiculously obvious to everyone outside the White House and the media.

The Saudis and Turkey are not about to lose this fight with Iran. Turkey is also worried about Kurdish gains. So they’re going to send ground troops to “fight ISIS”. Just like Iran and Russia are “fighting ISIS”.

Even in the best case scenario, this means the effective end of an independent Syria as it’s carved up under a Russian-Iranian-Turkish, etc occupation. Since Syria never really existed, that’s not too great of a loss. But in practice, it means that Syria will be divided into terrorist training camps for Shiite and Sunni terrorists, backed by friendly troops and jets from their allied states, which will sometimes also take shots at each other.

This may end up destroying ISIS by territorially squeezing it out. Or it may just escalate the already messy conflict and take it to a new level.

It’s hard to say to what extent this will represent a threat to the United States, aside from the general perception of weakness and impotence inflicted by Obama’s failed foreign policy. But if the conflict escalates, it could have all sorts of destructive implications. And obviously, Israel’s situation becomes more problematic. At the very least, we’re going to see Syria being turned into an even bigger terrorist production factory than it already was. And those terrorists won’t just stay in Syria, as we’ve already seen.

And the United States is likely to be dragged into this mess in a variety of ways from providing aid on the ground to peacekeeping to taking in refugees. And considering Turkey’s inappropriate place in NATO, we might end up even being dragged into an actual war.

That’s what Obama’s ceasefire looks like.

Our Good Islam/Bad Islam Strategy

February 11, 2016

Our Good Islam/Bad Islam Strategy, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, February 11, 2016

Behead them

There is no Good Islam. There is no Bad Islam. There is just Islam.

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

Our only hope of defeating Islamic terrorism is Islam. That’s our whole counterterrorism strategy.

But Islamic terrorism is not a separate component of Islam that can be cut off from it. Not only is it not un-Islamic, but it expresses Islamic religious imperatives. Muslim religious leaders have occasionally issued fatwas against terrorism, but terrorism for Muslim clerics, like sex for Bill Clinton, is a matter of definition. The tactics of terrorism, including suicide bombing and the murder of civilians, have been approved by fatwas from many of the same Islamic religious leaders that our establishment deems moderate. And the objective of terrorism, the subjugation of non-Muslims, has been the most fundamental Islamic imperative for the expansionistic religion since the days of Mohammed.

Our strategy, in Europe and America, under Bush and under Obama, has been to artificially subdivide a Good Islam from a Bad Islam and to declare that Bad Islam is not really Islam. Bad Islam, as Obama claims, “hijacked” a peaceful religion. Secretary of State Kerry calls Bad Islam’s followers, “apostates”. ISIS speaks for no religion. It has no religion. Which means the Islamic State must be a bunch of atheists.

Our diplomats and politicians don’t verbally acknowledge the existence of a Bad Islam. Even its name is one of those names that must not be named. There is only Good Islam. Bad Islam doesn’t even exist.

This isn’t just domestic spin, which it is, but it’s also an attempt at constructing an Islamic narrative. Our leaders don’t care what we think. They just want us to keep quiet and not offend Muslims. They do care a great deal about what Muslims think. And so, in their own clumsy way, they try to talk like Muslims.

They are attempting to participate in an Islamic debate without the requisite theological credentials. They want to tell Muslims that they should be Good Muslims not Bad Muslims, but they’re too afraid to use those words, so instead they substitute Good Muslims and Not Muslims. All Muslims are Good Muslims and Bad Muslims are Not Muslims is their Takfiri version of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Our counterterrorism strategy has been constructed to convince Good Islam to have nothing to do with Bad Islam. And any of us who criticize Good Islam or argue that the artificial distinction between Good Islam and Bad Islam, between Saudi Arabia and ISIS, between Iran and Hezbollah, between Pakistan and the Taliban, is false are accused of provoking Good Islam to transform into Bad Islam.

Nothing so thoroughly proves that the difference between Bad Islam and Good Islam is a lie as the compulsive way that they warn that Good Muslims are capable of turning into Bad Muslims at any moment. Offend a Good Muslim, criticize his religion, fail to integrate him, accommodate his every whim and censor what he dislikes and he’ll join ISIS and then he’ll become a Bad Muslim.

After every terror attack, the media painstakingly constructs a narrative to determine why former moderates like Anwar Al-Awlaki, the Tsarnaevs or the San Bernardino killers turned bad without resorting to religious explanations. Their efforts at rationalization quickly become ridiculous; Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood killer, contracted airborne PTSD, Anwar Al-Awlaki, the head of Al Qaeda in Yemen, became an “extremist” because he was afraid the FBI had found out about his prostitutes and the Times Square bomber turned into a terrorist because his “American Dream” was ruined.

Nobody, they conclude, becomes an Islamic terrorist because of Islam. Instead there are a thousand unrelated issues, having nothing to do with Islam, which creates the Muslim terrorist. Even the term “Radical Islamic Jihadist”, an absurd circumlocution (is there a moderate Islamic Jihadist), has become a badge of courage on one side and a dangerous, irresponsible term that provokes violence on the other.

But what is the distinction between Good Islam and Bad Islam? It isn’t fighting ISIS. Al Qaeda and the Taliban do that. It isn’t terrorism. Our Muslim allies, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey and Qatar, are hip deep in the terror trade. It isn’t equality for non-Muslims. No Muslim country under Sharia law could have that. Equality for women? See above.

What are the metrics that distinguish Good Islam and Bad Islam? There aren’t any. We can’t discuss the existence of Bad Islam because it would reveal that Bad Islam and Good Islam are really the same thing.

Our Good Islam allies in Pakistan fight Bad Islam’s terror, when they aren’t hiding Osama bin Laden. Bad Islam in the Islamic State beheads people and takes slaves and Good Islam in Saudi Arabia does too. Qatar is our Good Islam ally helping us fight Bad Islam terrorists by arming and funding Good Islam terrorists who sometimes turn out to be Bad Islam terrorists so we can’t figure out if the Islamic terrorists the CIA is routing weapons to are Good Islam terrorists or Bad Islam terrorists.

The moderate Muslim Brotherhood wins democratic elections. The extremist Muslim Brotherhood then burns down churches. The moderate Palestinian Authority negotiates with Israel and then the extremist Palestinian Authority cheers the stabbing of a Jewish grandmother. The moderate Iranian government signs a nuclear deal and then the extremist Iranian government calls for “Death to America”.

Like the saintly Dr. Jekyll and the mean Mr. Hyde, Good Islam and Bad Islam are two halves of the same coin. When Dr. Jekyll wanted to act out his baser nature, he took a potion and turned into Mr. Hyde. But the nasty urges were always a part of him. When a moderate Muslim pulls a Keffiyah over his face and starts stabbing, bombing or beheading, he doesn’t become an extremist, he just expresses his dark side.

Good Islam borrowed all sorts of noble sentiments from Judaism and Christianity. But when non-Muslims didn’t accept Islam, then Mohammed stopped playing nice and preached murder. Bad Islam is not something ISIS invented on a website. It’s always been a part of Islam. We attempt to separate Good Islam and Bad Islam because we don’t like being beheaded. But Muslims don’t make that distinction.

Our counterterrorism strategy is based on empowering Good Islam, on building coalitions with Muslims to fight terrorism and enlisting their cooperation in the War on Terror. But we’re trying to convince Dr. Jekyll to help us fight Mr. Hyde. And Dr. Jekyll might even help us out, until he turns into Mr. Hyde.

Our moderate Afghan Muslim allies, when they’re aren’t raping young boys (one of their cultural peculiarities we are taught to ignore), sometimes unexpectedly open fire on our soldiers. The Muslim migrants who arrive here to “enrich” our societies sometimes start shooting and bombing. The head of Al Qaeda was hanging out near the West Point of Pakistan. The mastermind of 9/11 was saved by a member of the Qatari royal family. The call is coming from inside the house. Mr. Hyde is Dr. Jekyll.

When we “empower” and “build coalitions” with Good Islam, we’re also empowering and building coalitions with Bad Islam. Just ask all the Muslim terrorists running around with our weapons.

Our leaders want Good Islam to shield us from Bad Islam. If Good Islam is out front, then Muslims won’t see a clash of civilizations or a religious war, but a war between Good Islam and Bad Islam. But the Muslim understanding of Good Islam and Bad Islam is very different from our own.

Sunnis see their Jihadis as Good Islam and Shiites as Bad Islam. Shiites look at it the other way around. The Muslim Brotherhood, that our elites were so enamored with, saw secular governments as Bad Islam. To win them over, we helped them overthrow more secular governments because our leaders had adopted an understanding of Good Islam in which giving Christians civil rights was Bad Islam.

To win over Good Islam, we censor cartoons of Mohammed and criticism of the Koran, open our borders, Islamize our institutions and then wait to see if we’re on the good side of Good Islam. We adapt our societies and legal systems to Islamic norms and hope that it’s enough to let us join the Good Islam Coalition. If we go on at this rate, the experts will tell us that the only way to defeat Islamic terrorism is for us to become Muslims. Only then will we become members in good standing of Good Islam.

There is no Good Islam and no Bad Islam, as Muslim leaders occasionally trouble to tell us. The distinction that our leaders make between Good Islam and Bad Islam is not theological, but pragmatic. They dub whatever is shooting at us right now Bad Islam and assume that everything else must be Good Islam. That is the fallacy which they used to arrive at their Tiny Minority of Extremists formula.

There is no Tiny Minority of Extremists. Behind the various tiny minorities of extremists are countries and billionaires, global organizations and Islamic banks. Outsourcing our counterterrorism strategy to the countries and ideologies behind the terrorists we’re fighting isn’t a plan, it’s a death wish.

Islamic terrorism is just what we call Islam when it’s killing us.

The Jihad isn’t coming from some phantom website. It’s coming from our Muslim allies. It’s coming from Pakistan, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. It’s coming from the Muslim Brotherhood and its front groups. It’s coming from the moderate Muslim leaders that our leaders pose with at anti-extremism conferences. And it’s coming from the mosques and homes of the Muslims living in America.

There is no Good Islam. There is no Bad Islam. There is just Islam.

Humor+ | Laugh. It’s the Best Medicine. Then get serious again.

February 11, 2016

Laugh. It’s the Best Medicine. Then get serious again. Dan Miller’s Blog, February 11, 2016

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

Obama and Hillary are evil and some Republican candidates are bad. Stay mad, but laugh occasionally because it’s refreshing. Then, let’s take America back.

Sometimes life is hard.

Yeah, but wouldn’t it be terrible if everything always happened just as we want it to?

This is pretty much how government really works. They just aren’t this good as telling us.

Jimmy Buffett manages to offend just about everyone while being funny as he does it. That’s good!

It’s about time for a drink.

 

OK, it’s time to get serious again.

Obama said, “You didn’t build that.” Yes we did; He didn’t, and He keeps trying to tear her down and to rebuild her in His own image.

Now she’s ours. We intend to keep her and to make her as productive, strong and hopeful as she once was. Xenophobic? Damn right.

We can take her back. Will we? You betcha!

CAIR Intertwines with US-based, Terror-Linked Fuqra Group

February 9, 2016

CAIR Intertwines with US-based, Terror-Linked Fuqra Group, Clarion ProjectRyan Mauro, February 9, 2016

Gilani-HP_1Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani, the radical head of Jamaat ul-Fuqra, a terrorist organization fronted in the U.S. by Muslims of the Americas.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and its “moderate” image is suffering from a self-inflicted wound now it has become intertwined with the Muslims of the Americas, a radical anti-Semitic front for the Jamaat ul-Fuqra terrorist group.

CAIR’s Massachusetts chapter now shares an official with MOA and two CAIR officials spoke at MOA’s International Islamophobia Conference.

The Massachusetts chapter of CAIR recently chose MOA’s general counsel, Tahirah Amatul Wadud, as a board member. CAIR, a U.S.Muslim Brotherhood entity banned for its own terror links in the UAE, wisely omitted mention of MOA. It described her generically as a “general counsel for a New York Muslim congregation.”

Wadud reportedly posted an article by MOA’s Pakistan-based leader, Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani, on her Facebook claiming the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) is a puppet of the British government and a Jewish conspiracy perpetrated the attacks on Pearl Harbor and September 11, 2001. The Clarion Project was the first to report on the inflammatory article.

“There was no need for America to go to war against Hitler. Hitler was not the enemy of America or the American people. There was a mutual animosity between Hitler and the Jews. So, the American people paid a very heavy price for fighting someone else’s war,” Gilani wrote.

American Taliban _ Mauro-240x145

Two CAIR officials spoke at MOA’s International Islamophobia Conference, which included a poster featuring the faces of the “American Taliban” that included Clarion Project national security analyst Ryan Mauro. They were CAIR-Michigan Executive Director Dawud Walid and CAIR-ArizonaExecutive Director Imraan Siddiqi. Walid was one of the CAIR officials who have questioned whether Muslims should honor fallen U.S. servicemen on Memorial Day, sparking a backlash from Muslims who appreciate the U.S. military.

Jamaat ul-Fuqra is led by Gilani. It is best known for a series of terrorist attacks and plots in the 1980s and early 1990s and for setting up “Islamic villages” across the country, including at least two that were shut down by the authorities. These “villages” are known to have been used for guerilla warfare training. Fuqra now goes primarily by the name of Muslims of the Americas (MOA), among other names. The group says it has 22 such “villages” in the U.S.

The Clarion Project obtained video of female members receiving basic paramilitary instruction in military fatigue at its “Islamberg” headquarters in New York. The date of the footage is cut off, only stating “Jan. 28 20,” presumably meaning it was made in 2000 or after. The best explanation MOA members have come up with is that it was a “self-defense class.”

View the video here:

The Clarion Project identified a Fuqra “village” in Texas in 2014 and retrieved an FBI intelligence report from 2007 that stated MOA “possess an infrastructure capable of planning and mounting terrorist campaigns overseas and within the U.S.” and “the documented propensity for violence by this organization supports the belief the leadership of the MOA extols membership to pursue a policy of jihad or holy war against individuals or groups it considers enemies of Islam, which includes the U.S. Government.”

The FBI also said “members of the MOA are encouraged to travel to Pakistan to receive religious and military/terrorist training from Gilani.” In 2001, ATF Special Agent Thomas P. Gallagher testified in court that “individuals from the organization are trained in Hancock, N.Y., and if they pass the training in Hancock, N.Y., are then sent to Pakistan for training in paramilitary and survivalist training by Mr. Gilani.”

After Clarion Project identified the Texas site and published the FBI report, a dozen Muslim groups have signed a statement calling for Fuqra’s designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Of course, CAIR isn’t one of them. CAIR actually came to Fuqra/MOA’s defense. And now CAIR and Fuqra have shared leadership through CAIR-Massachusetts and hold events together.

CAIR Two Officials Siddiqi Walid-240x323

MOA’s International Islamophobia Conference took place at the Muslim Community Center of the Capital District in Schenectady, New York. CAIR-Arizona Executive Director Imraan Siddiqi is listed as a member of the Board of Directors, indicating he played more than a speaking role in setting the MOA event up.

The MOA’s event featured delegates representing the U.S., Canada, Pakistan, Senegal, India, Taiwan, Bangladesh and Egypt. Siddiqi was the delegate representing India. MOA flyers also list headquarters in Caracas, Venezuela and Las Lomas, Trinidad & Tobago. The MOA claims it had nearly 300 attendees and thousands watched online. It announced it would start a new political coalition named the “International United Muslim Forum.”

Ironically, MOA has tried to excuse itself from its terrorist and criminal history by claiming that it was infiltrated by Wahhabist/Muslim Brotherhood operatives who were sent to undermine Sheikh Gilani. It even claims that one operative was a shape-shifter who could go “through physical changes before speaking to people as if he were Sheikh Gilani.”

And now MOA is collaborating with a known Muslim Brotherhood entity. You can read our documented profiles of CAIR and MOA here and here.