Emails show DOD analysts told to ‘cut it out’ on ISIS warnings; IG probe expands

investigationFox News, by Catherine Herridge, Nov. 23, 2015:

Analysts at U.S. Central Command were pressured to ease off negative assessments about the Islamic State threat and were even told in an email to “cut it out,” Fox News has learned – as an investigation expands into whether intelligence reports were altered to present a more positive picture.

Fox News is told by a source close to the CENTCOM analysts that the pressure on them included at least two emails saying they needed to “cut it out” and “toe the line.”

Separately, a former Pentagon official told Fox News there apparently was an attempt to destroy the communications. The Pentagon official said the email warnings were “not well received” by the analysts.

Those emails, among others, are now in the possession of the Pentagon inspector general. The IG’s probe is expanding into whether intelligence assessments were changed to give a more positive picture of the anti-ISIS campaign.

The former Pentagon official said there were “multiple assessments” from military intelligence and the CIA regarding the “rapid rise” of ISIS in Iraq and North Africa in the year leading up to the group’s territory grab in 2014.

Similar intelligence was included in the President’s Daily Brief, or PDB – the intelligence community’s most authoritative product — during the same time period. Yet the official, who was part of the White House discussions, said the administration kept “kicking the can down the road.” The official said there was no discussion of the military involvement needed to make a difference.

The IG probe started earlier this year amid complaints that information was changed to make ISIS look more degraded than it really was.

Among the complaints is that after the U.S. air campaign started in August 2014, the metrics to measure progress changed. They were modified to use measures such as the number of sorties and body counts — a metric not used since the Vietnam War — to paint a more positive picture.

Critics say this “activity-based approach” to tracking the effectiveness of strikes does not paint a comprehensive picture of whether ISIS is being degraded and contained.

The New York Times first reported on Sunday that the IG investigation was expanding and adding more investigators, and that the office had taken possession of a trove of documents and emails as part of that probe.

Asked about the report, House intelligence committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said Sunday that his committee and others are involved in the investigation.

“We heard from a lot of whistle-blowers and other informants who have given us information. And not just … related strictly to the latest allegations,” Nunes said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Citing the renewed focus on ISIS after the Paris terror attacks, he added: “So the president, to have a successful strategy, is going to admit that they’ve got it wrong and they need to relook at a larger strategy that deals with north Africa, the Middle East, all the way over to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and then work closely with our NATO allies with what appears to be a command and control structure that ISIS has created successfully in Europe.”

President Obama, speaking at a press conference in Malaysia over the weekend, said he expects to “get to the bottom” of whether ISIS intelligence reports were altered – and has told his top military officials as much.

“One of the things I insisted on the day I walked into the Oval Office was that I don’t want intelligence shaded by politics. I don’t want it shaded by the desire to tell a feel-good story,” Obama said Sunday. “I believe that the Department of Defense and all those who head up our intelligence agencies understand that, and that I have made it repeatedly clear to all my top national security advisers that I never want them to hold back, even if the intelligence or their opinions about the intelligence, their analysis or interpretations of the data contradict current policy.”

At the same time, he said, “As a consumer of this intelligence, it’s not as if I’ve been receiving wonderfully rosy, glowing portraits of what’s been happening in Iraq and Syria over the last year and a half. … [I]t feels to me like, at my level at least, we’ve had a pretty clear-eyed, sober assessment.”

The president’s call for a thorough investigation was greeted with cynicism by those involved in the 2014 intelligence assessments, since the administration did not act on the earlier raw intelligence that painted a dire picture of developments, especially in Iraq.

Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Herridge joined FNC in 1996 as a London-based correspondent.

Vladimir Putin’s massive, triple-decker war room revealed

war roomWashington Post, by Andrew Roth, Nov. 21, 2015:

MOSCOW — “Gentlemen. You can’t fight in here. This is the war room!”

It could have been a scene straight out of “Dr. Strangelove” when President Vladimir V. Putin stepped into the Russian Ministry of Defense’s brand new, three-tiered, multibillion-dollar control center this week, for a war briefing that had its fair share of movie-like pageantry.

The fortified National Control Defense Center was Putin’s first stop after officials confirmed that the Russian charter jet crash that claimed 224 lives last month was the result of an act of terror.

On movie-theater-size screens, live broadcasts showed long-range strategic bombers taking off from Russian air bases to fly sorties over Syria. Putin instructed commanders in Syria to “make contact with the French and work with them as allies” as Russia seeks a central role in a proposed anti-terrorist coalition.

But the real star of the show may have been the building itself, which is designed to be a new nerve center for the Russian military that will coordinate military action around the world, including ballistic missile launches and strategic nuclear deployments.

putin war rm

The building is roughly the equivalent of the U.S. National Military Command Center used by the Pentagon, but as one Russian state news agency noted in abreathless headline this week, “Russian Defense Data Center Outperforms US Facility Threefold: Official.”

The center, which is fortified and said to sit on top of a maze of underground tunnels, is on the Frunze Naberezhnaya on the left bank of the Moscow river, a little over two miles from Red Square.


Russia’s army, which has cost hundreds of billions of dollars, but has also produced noted improvements, from the expertise of Russian troops deployed during the Crimea operation to the recent cruise missile strikes launched from the Caspian Sea.

The new national defense center also includes a helicopter pad that was deployed on the Moscow River late last year and can accommodate Russia’s Mi-8 transport helicopter. In case of a war, it would be the country’s premier communications center, and one Russian commander compared it to the military headquarters of the Soviet Union during World War II.

Minister of Defense Sergei Shoigu said that the center is a step toward “forming a single information space for solving tasks in the interests of the country’s defense.”

As Worldviews noted during Russia’s International Army Games in August, Russia’s military has sought to raise its public profile through savvy media branding.

At the briefing, army personnel sat in color-coded rows with matching headsets and water bottles bearing the Russian army brand (their flagship store recently opened on Tverskaya Street here, Moscow’s equivalent of Fifth Avenue). The briefing was covered on Russian national television from at least four distinct camera angles.

Andrei Kolesnikov, a reporter who has covered Putin for the past 15 years and is known for his lyrical, fawning reports of the Russian president, waxed introspective as he covered the briefing Tuesday.

“When this building and this room were opened a year ago, I was somewhat perplexed: Yes, it all looks very persuasive, and the Pentagon might even only dream of something like this, if only in a nightmare. But why? Who will need these screens the size of small soccer fields with grandstands for viewers?


“And here was the answer. Every spot was filled. Russia’s entire high army command were the viewers. Or was it like the warming bench, and at any moment everyone was ready to go on the field …”

Later in the piece, he added: “My soul of course was not filled with delight and trembling at the hellish power of this armada. But I was perturbed, yes, I was.”

Andrew Roth is a reporter in The Post’s Moscow bureau.

Compare and contrast:

U.S. Pilots Confirm: Obama Admin Blocks 75 Percent of Islamic State Strikes (

Attkisson: Obama Is Selectively Reading Intel Reports [VIDEO] (

Obama and the ISIS ‘Recruitment Tool’ Canard

(Photo by Drew Angerer/Pool/Sipa USA)

(Photo by Drew Angerer/Pool/Sipa USA)


I cannot think of a more potent recruitment tool for ISIS than … Barack Obama.

This puts me at odds with Barack Obama, as is often the case. It is worth explaining my reasoning, though, since – as our bloviator-in-chief is fond of saying – this is a teachable moment.

The president of the United States, shamefully but characteristically, took the opportunity of being on foreign soil – in the Philippines with its large Muslim population – to smear his fellow countrymen over their effort to protect American national security. The Republican initiative, led by Senator Ted Cruz, would thwart Obama’s scheme to import thousands of refugees and prioritize the asylum claims of Christians. In response to this “rhetoric,” Obama seethed, “I cannot think of a more potent recruitment tool for ISIL.”

The president elaborated that “when you start seeing individuals in position of responsibility suggesting Christians are more worthy of protection than Muslims are in a war-torn land, that feeds the ISIL narrative.”

So tough here to untangle the ignorance from the demagoguery. For starters, asylum does not involve placing comparative values on the lives of different categories of people. And no one would be more offended than Christians at the notion that Christian lives should be valued more highly than those of other human beings. (By contrast, the conceit that Muslim lives – especially the lives of male Muslims – are more worthy than others is a leitmotif of Islamic scripture that is reflected throughout sharia law.)

Asylum, instead, is a remedy for persecution that is controlled by federal law. Obama lashed out at Republicans for promoting a “religious test,” which he claimed was “offensive and contrary to American values.” Yet, because asylum addresses persecution, governing law has always incorporated a religious test. Again, that is not because the lives of one religion’s believers are innately better than others; it is because when religious persecution is occurring, the targeted religion’s believers are inevitably more vulnerable to murder, rape, torture, and other atrocities than co-religionists of the persecutors.

Consequently, longstanding congressional statutes (a) call on aliens claiming to be refugees to prove “a well-founded fear of persecution on account of … religion,” among other things; and (b) require refugees seeking asylum to “establish that … religion [among other things] was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.”

Despite his diatribe, I’m going to go out on a limb and conclude that this is not news to Obama, a Harvard-trained lawyer who, for seven years, has been president and thus responsible for executing the asylum laws. He is also well aware, though, that the Muslim audience to which he was appealing, in the Philippines and in the broader ummah, does not have a clue about the vagaries of American immigration statutes.

Obama knows, moreover, that because sharia tells Muslims their lives are more valuable than those of non-Muslims, nothing is more apt to rile them up than an accusation that nativist Americans are portraying them as second-rate. And Obama knows that when Muslims get riled up, Western politicians curl up in a “religion of peace” ball and meekly back down. The president may not keep the U.S. Code on his shelves, but his bag of community-organizer tricks is ever at the ready.

One trick that never gets old is the claim that this or that American policy is a primo “recruitment tool” for jihadists.

Of course, the patent cause of violent jihadism is Islamic supremacist ideology. Washington politicians will not concede this fact because that ideology is unmistakably based on a literal construction of Islamic scripture – the Koran, the hadith, and sacralized biographies of the prophet Muhammad.

As it happens, there are ways of construing Islamic scripture that are not as literal. These constructions inform the view of millions of Muslims that violent jihad and systematic discrimination are not ordained in the modern world. These competing constructions, however, do not change the stubborn reality that Islamic supremacism – what we presume to call “radical” Islam – is a mainstream interpretation of Islam followed by tens of millions of Muslims, among them renowned sharia scholars, violent jihadists, and wily Islamists.

Though neither Republican transnational-progressives nor the hard Left will admit this palpable truth, the rationales of the two camps are significantly different.

The Republican moderates are well-meaning but foolish. Lacking confidence or competence to explain the different interpretations of Islam, they fear that if they concede the nexus between Islamic doctrine and jihadism, they will be perceived as “at war with Islam.” So they relentlessly pretend that the “true” Islam is irenic: a noble quest for justice and tolerance. Because these Republicans are more politically progressive than conservative, they delude themselves into believing their soaring words will someday alter reality: If they say “religion of peace” and “moderate” enough times, Islam will actually become a moderate religion of peace, its sharia seamlessly compatible with our Constitution and Western principles – regardless of what Islamic doctrine actually says.

The Left, to the contrary, is neither well-meaning nor foolish. It will not admit the nexus between Islamic scripture and jihadist terror for two shrewd reasons.

The first is that the alliance with Islamists is useful to the Left. I explained in The Grand Jihad why Islamists and Leftists align, despite their differences on important matters like the rights of women, homosexuals, and the unborn. Both are anti-capitalist, authoritarian central-planners, hostile to individual liberty. They become fast friends whenever they have a common enemy – e.g., the Egyptian monarchy, the shah of Iran, or the Western culture of freedom and reason. If the common enemy is overcome, Islamists and Leftists turn on each other with a vengeance because their utopias cannot coexist. But as long as the common enemy exists, they work well together – just as internecine rivalries between Islamist camps (e.g., Iran and al Qaeda) are set aside in order to present a united front against the West and Israel.

What is the second rationale for the Left’s insistence on bleaching away jihadism’s roots in Islamic doctrine? That brings us back to Obama’s claim that the conservative case against admitting thousands of Syrian refugees is a “recruitment tool” for ISIS.

Obviously, jihad does not erupt out of thin air. The American public, which remains widely uninformed about Islam, realizes something must cause the violence, and that the violence will continue unless that something is overcome. For Leftists, this presents a golden opportunity: They understand that our deeply ingrained tradition of religious liberty – a tradition the Left generally abhors – makes the public resistant to the notion that a religion can cause violence, and thus receptive to the assurance that Islam does not.

So if Islam, in the Left’s telling, has nothing to do with the savagery jihadists commit, what is the cause? Obama and his cohort fill in this blank with … the principles and policies they oppose: robust national defense, American leadership in the world, free speech, sovereignty, economic liberty, income inequality, Christianity, Israel’s character as a Jewish state, Guantanamo Bay, military commissions, … even climate change.

Yes, this is preposterous if you’ve familiarized yourself with Islamic supremacism and classical sharia. But, alas, much of America has not despite a generation of jihad from Tehran to Manhattan to Paris. What a powerful rhetorical weapon it is for the Left to claim that what it opposes is not just wrong but the cause of mass-murder attacks.

In the real world, however, it is the sharia supremacist interpretation of Islam that causes jihadist terror. With that as the foundation, jihadist recruitment has little or nothing to do with the pretexts conveniently conjured by the Left. To the contrary, recruitment is driven by one thing:the perception that jihadists will win. As Osama bin Laden recognized, people are drawn to the strong horse and shun the weak horse.

That is why I cannot think of a more potent recruitment tool for ISIS than … Barack Obama.

Also see:

Sam Sorbo: Co-Existence is Futile

coexist-640x480 (1)

Breitbart, by Sam Sorbo, Nov. 18, 2015:

The following is a monologue presented in the opening of The Sam Sorbo Show on November 16, 2015. To listen to the segment, click below.

Not 10 hours before the attacks in Paris that killed 129 people and left 352 injured, President Obama claimed he had “contained” ISIS.

Now his apologists are rushing in to defend his misinformed assertion with explanations that he was referring to ISIS’ geographical containment, that they aren’t gaining more ground in Syria. But I’m fed up with this word play. Geographically, they are bigger than ever before, having now advanced as far as FRANCE! Let me ask you this, you forked-tongued, logic-lacking sycophants. Would he repeat his  assertion – that ISIS is contained – today, after the attacks in Paris? NO!

We currently face two threats on our way of life in a country that has offered mankind the most technological advances and created the most prosperity the world has ever seen: Political correctness, or secularism, and Medieval Islamists.

Medieval Islam seeks to challenge us, violently. They don’t just disagree with self-governance and this country’s dedication to the God of Abraham and our Judeo-Christian morals. If they did, those insipid, moronic bumper stickers would be true, and we would all co-exist. For all you bozos out there driving around with those co-exist stickers, you can’t coexist with someone who wants you dead, has the capacity to ensure that, and remains convicted that you lack any rights whatsoever. You can only shoot back in self-preservation. Co-existence is not an option because the other sides reject it outright. And by the way, those victims in the theater and restaurants in France complied with the restrictive gun laws, and were unable to shoot back. Their right to co-exist was summarily terminated by those lunatic jihadis who instead chose co-non-existence.

Hillary Clinton, the leading democrat candidate for president, cannot even name the enemy, vaguely referring to “violent extremism,” and “people using their religion for purposes of power and oppression.”

This is a woman who lacks understanding, who seeks to co-exist. She insists that this isn’t “our war.” This is like the “lone wolf” argument that all things occur in vacuums and remain unrelated. Somehow, she (and many others) magically separate fundamentalist Islamist doctrine from Islam, in uneducated, petulant defiance of what the leading Islamic theologians tell us. The people who adhere to the fundamentalist doctrine of Islam are at war with us, meaning freedom and the Judeo-Christian principles on which the West was founded. France is just the most recent example of that.

Isn’t it ironic that George W. Bush put together a coalition of 48 countries to take to take the fight to Al Queda, and France wasn’t even among them? Remember, France wouldn’t let the US fly over her airspace! So… Why attack France? I’ll tell you why. The terrorists aren’t examining the non-believers’ efforts at co-existence. They are simply looking to kill Western values, and the most expedient way to do that is by killing all human beings who hold those values: Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité. Liberty, Equality, Brotherhood. And Freedom!

Those are the things these barbarians want to snuff out, and you’re standing in their way.

Obama pulled the troops out of Iraq, after his apology tour to the Middle East, as an appeasement move, to prove we were reasonable and non-interventionist. Remember the purple fingers in Iraq, when the people voted for their own government? Obama single-handedly destroyed their future. He supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. He is paving the way for Iran to get a nuclear bomb.

Consider how the world might be, had the US stayed the course in Iraq, had Obama negotiated the Status of Forces agreement. Did you hear Hillary blame George Bush for that at the debate? As if Obama was too inept to negotiate one himself! No. Obama wanted OUT of the Middle East, and these are the consequences.

This is a failure of leadership that cannot be laid at anyone’s feet but the current administration’s, including the former Secretary of State — “That was a mistake, I’m sorry about that, I take responsibility…” — who is now under investigation by the FBI for putting US security at risk. Hillary presided over the “Arab Spring,” sent Ambassador Stevens into danger and then forgot him, and was downright gleeful at the horrific, brutal execution of Gaddafi. “We came; we saw; he died!

But while Radical Islam is a threat to Democracy and the American Way, it is not the greatest threat. Sen. Bernie Sanders believes that Climate change, something as yet unproven by science, is the greatest threat to this country. He’s completely wrong, but willing to sacrifice the world’s most impoverished people on the altar of Climate Change. Limiting access to cheap fossil fuels will hurt them the most. He is secularism and political correctness in a nut shell. A nut shell — get it?

Terrorists and secularists can both be likened to the communists, Nazis, and socialists who came before them, because they both choose which lives are valuable and which are expendable, or even offensive. Those poor excuses for human beings so love themselves they seek to destroy anyone who isn’t completely aligned with them, and sometimes even those who are. Make no mistake, they represent love of self over God. They choose to believe they should have power over life and death, like Mao and Pol Pot and Bin Ladin. But here in the West, for us to be against slavery and killing is to support a morality that condemns those things, and that is a morality unique to the Judeo-Christian God.

Political correctness, practiced by secularists, is our gravest potential undoing. If you cannot identify the enemy, and you may not criticize an enemy who by any account wants you dead, and you pointlessly struggle to co-exist with said enemy while they chant “Death to America,” and you argue for supplying that enemy with government subsidies and a place to live within your own borders, and with billions of dollars as in Iran; If you sacrifice yourself for your enemy because political correctness prevents you from doing otherwise for fear of reprisals from your politicians, the media, activist judges, and even the IRS, the enemy is no longer some fanatical guy with a knife or a gun. The enemy is your own inability to choose good over evil.

Political correctness has nearly completely eroded our discernment, and that is the greatest threat to America. Because, more than anything else, America is an idea, founded in the truth of Nature’s God, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all human beings are created equal, but lack equal outcomes. Political correctness is the end of that, because it insists on equal outcomes, in defiance of nature’s God. Political correctness is death to truth, defeat of America, and destruction to the western world.

Ben Carson was castigated for stating that he would not favor a Muslim to become president of the US. That is political correctness preventing us from understanding the very core of Islam, which is a political, religious and legal movement that stands in direct opposition to our Constitution. President Obama wants felons to have a better chance to obtain government jobs. That’s political correctness, surrendering our self-governance to proven criminals, in defiance of our Constitution. “Safe Spaces” and “Free Speech Zones” on College Campuses so delicate brain-washed students won’t feel insulted or threatened by ideas, or face the one thing they pretend to desire most: diversity, because they cannot tolerate diversity of thought. That’s political correctness on the level of a hallucinogenic.

Think about this: Everywhere there is Islamic rule, other religions have been virtually wiped out. Northern Africa used to be predominantly Christian. Not anymore. What’s the one thing the Muslim world cannot agree to? The existence of Israel. There is no “co-exist” in a Muslim-majority country. “Co-exist” is a fantasy of the illiterate and uninformed, and a contrivance to mislead the useful idiots of today.

Eisenhower said, “Democracy is nothing in the world but a spiritual conviction, a conviction that each of us is enormously valuable, because of a certain standing before our own God.” The Christian believes in equality and freedom because we are created in the image of God. This is why our legacy is the fight for freedom for all. Secularism believes in self above all, and supports only self-serving ends. Islam practices apartheid, slavery, and extermination against non-believers and women.

If you believe in equality and freedom, then you have inherited some of the moral capital of our great nation. A bill is coming due. I just hope we haven’t squandered too much of our inheritance on political correctness to pay it.

The Real Containment

Paris vigilby Mark Steyn
Steyn on Europe
November 19, 2015

Because (per Obama’s latest complaint) of “how decentralized power is in this system”, over 30 American governors have told the President they don’t want him shipping battalions of “Syrian” “refugees” to their states. He, in turn, has sneered that his critics are scared of “widows and orphans”. With his usual brilliant comic timing, he said this a couple of hours before a female suicide bomber self-detonated in St Denis.

Nonetheless, the presidential-gubernatorial split is an interesting development. Obama has responded with a brand new hashtag: #RefugeesWelcome. If you live in Hashtagistan, this is another great hashtag to add to such invincible hashtags as #PeaceForParis, #JeSuisCharlie, #UnitedForUkraine and, of course, #BringBackOurGirls. If you live in the real world, the magic hashtags don’t seem to work so well, and these governors seem to think #RefugeesWelcome will perform no better for New Mexico and New Hampshire than the others have worked out for Paris, Ukraine and Boko Haram-infested West Africa.

So reality is not yet entirely irrelevant – and reality is on the march:


An Italian priest is fighting for his life in northern Bangladesh after being shot and seriously wounded by unidentified gunmen.

The attack on Wednesday is the latest in a series targeting foreigners in the country, which have been blamed on Islamic militant groups including Islamic State.


A Jewish teacher has reportedly been stabbed in Marseille by three people claiming to be ISIS supporters… The suspects, who were reportedly wearing ISIS badges, made anti-semitic comments before stabbing the teacher.


A married couple plotted an Isil suicide bombing of the London Underground or Westfield shopping centre around the tenth anniversary of the 7/7 suicide attacks, a court heard on Tuesday.

Mohammed Rehman, 25, and his wife Sana Ahmed Khan, 24, had enough bomb material to “cause multiple fatalities”…


Honduras Detains Five Syrians Said Headed To U.S. With Stolen Greek Passports


The man arrested Tuesday trying to enter Parliament carrying a hidden meat cleaver probably has mental illness and isn’t a terrorist, the head of the RCMP said Wednesday.

Toronto man Yasin Mohamed Ali, 56, was arrested outside the Centre Block of Parliament in Ottawa and appeared in court Wednesday.

Hmm. “Mentally ill” “Toronto man”… But then, as John Kerry has assured us, all of the above is nothing to do with Islam. Objecting to mass murder in your country of nominal citizenship is alsonothing to do with Islam:

France: Only 30 Muslims Show Up For Rally Against Paris Jihad Attacks

What’s the punchline? “…and seven of those were wearing suicide belts”?

ISIS is not itself the cause of the problem. What ISIS is is the most effective vehicle for the cause – which is Islamic imperialist conquest. What ISIS did in the Paris attacks was bring many disparate elements together – Muslims born and bred in France, Muslim immigrants to other European countries, recently arrived Muslim “refugees”… An organization that can command numerous assets of different status – holders of 11 different passports – and tie them all together is a formidable enemy. Playing whack-a-mole on that scale will ensure we lose, and bankrupt ourselves in the process.

Meanwhile, the caliphate is coining it: ISIS is the wealthiest terrorist organization in history, making billions of dollars a year from oil sales, bank raids, human smuggling, extortion and much else. So they have a ton of money with which to fund their ideological goals.

And yet, as I say, ISIS is merely the vehicle for the ideology, which in the end can only be defeated by taking it on. You can’t drone the animating ideas away. And the biggest obstacle to a vigorous ideological pushback is the west’s politico-media class – Obama, Kerry, Merkel, Cameron, Justin Trudeau, etc – who insist that Islam and immigration can never be a part of the discussion, and seem genuinely to believe that, say, more niqabs on the streets of western cities is a heartwarming testament to the vibrancy of our diversity, rather than a grim marker of our descent into a brutal and segregated society in which half the population will be chattels forbidden by their owners from feeling sunlight on their faces.

But best not to bring that up. So the attackers got suicide bombs to within a few yards of the French president. And a football match intended to show that European life goes on ended in cancellation, security lockdowns and the German chancellor being hustled away to safety. And the Belgian government has admitted it can no longer enforce its jurisdiction in parts of its own capital city within five miles of Nato headquarters… And yet, for all that, the European papers are surprisingly light on analyses of what’s going on. The multiculti diversity omertà is ruthlessly enforced, and few commentators (and even fewer editors and publishers) want to suffer the taint of “Islamophobe!” or “Racist!” Easier just to run another piece on how heartwarming that Eiffel peace symbol is – as even my old friends at the Telegraph, a supposedly “right-wing” paper, did.

Responding to Steve Sailer’s column “Four Ways To Save Europe”, Kathy Shaidle comments:

Sailer assumes Europe wants to be saved.

Whereas Europe is like, “What black eye? No, I ran into a door. Everything’s cool. You must be weird or something…”

Europe as a battered wife in denial – just like Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s all-American hometown girl.

Meanwhile, during the moment of silence for the dead of Paris, Turkish soccer fans aren’t shy about yelling “Allahu Akbar!”. It was, in fact, the least silent “moment of silence” of all time. Euphemism, circumspection and self-censorship are strictly for the infidels.

So is the gubernatorial pushback (against a president who calls them bigots and racists) a sign that the sappy hashtags are having a harder time post-Paris? Or is it just a passing phase in the immediate aftermath of mass slaughter?

Donald Trump had a good line at his Massachusetts rally on Wednesday night:

ISIS is ‘contained’? The only thing that’s contained is us.

Whether that’s true in America, it’s certainly true of the European political discourse. And, unless that changes, in Sweden, Belgium, Austria and elsewhere, we are approaching a point of no return.

President Obama’s Cynical Refugee Ploy

The American Interest, by WALTER RUSSELL MEAD, Nov. 17, 2015:

The debate we are having over the acceptance of Syrian refugees is not the conversation the country needs.

The governors of 26 U.S. states signaled yesterday that they will not be willing to take in any Syrian refugees, following the lead of Michigan and Alabama, which announced similar objections this past Sunday. Governor Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire became the first Democrat to voice opposition to President Obama’s plan to accept 10,000 refugees from the war in Syria in the next year. Governors of Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington, and Connecticut, on the other hand, came out in explicit support of the initiative.

Goodhearted liberals have reacted with handwringing to the avalanche of dissenting governors. Some have earnestly quoted relevant Bible verses about taking in the poor and the afflicted, while the usual righteous tut-tutters have engaged in their usual righteous tut-tutting. “Everybody who disagrees with my proposal is a bitter-clinging xenophobe, not to mention a racist,” is the clear implication of the President’s supporters.

That there are racist xenophobes in this country is clear to anybody who has ever perused the comments section of an internet news site, or has spent too much time on Facebook and Twitter. And many of these people are spewing ugly hate about Syrian refugees in ways that appall—or should appall—anybody with an open mind and a humane spirit. That said, the refugee issue is not, despite President Obama’s rhetoric, a simple morality play featuring Wise Liberals and Racist Jacksonians. It is something more complicated and, at least as far as President Obama’s own role in the debate, a bit uglier.
To see the full cynicism of the Obama approach to the refugee issue, one has only to ask President Obama’s least favorite question: Why is there a Syrian refugee crisis in the first place?
Obama’s own policy decisions—allowing Assad to convert peaceful demonstrations into an increasingly ugly civil war, refusing to declare safe havens and no fly zones—were instrumental in creating the Syrian refugee crisis. This crisis is in large part the direct consequence of President Obama’s decision to stand aside and watch Syria burn. For him to try and use a derisory and symbolic program to allow 10,000 refugees into the United States in order to posture as more caring than those evil Jacksonian rednecks out in the benighted sticks is one of the most cynical, cold-blooded, and nastily divisive moves an American President has made in a long time.
Moreover, many of those “benighted” people were willing to sign up for the U.S. military and go to fight ISIS in Syria to protect the refugees. Many Americans who now oppose the President’s ill-considered refugee program have long supported the use of American power to create “safe zones” in Syria so the refugees could be sheltered and fed in their own country. If President Obama seriously cared about the fate of Syria’s millions of displaced people, he would have started to organize those safe havens years ago. And if he understood the nature of America’s role in Europe, he would have known that working with the Europeans to prevent a mass refugee and humanitarian disaster was something that had to be done.
Also see:

Obama Wants to Defeat America, Not ISIS


Frontpage, by Daniel Greenfield, Nov. 18, 2015:

Last year at a NATO summit, Obama explicitly disavowed the idea of containing ISIS. “You can’t contain an organization that is running roughshod through that much territory, causing that much havoc, displacing that many people, killing that many innocents, enslaving that many women,” he said.

Instead he argued, “The goal has to be to dismantle them.”

Just before the Paris massacre, Obama shifted back to containment. “From the start, our goal has been first to contain them, and we have contained them,” he said.

Pay no attention to what he said last year. There’s a new message now. Last year Obama was vowing to destroy ISIS. Now he had settled for containing them. And he couldn’t even manage that.

ISIS has expanded into Libya and Yemen. It struck deep into the heart of Europe as one of its refugee suicide bombers appeared to have targeted the President of France and the Foreign Minister of Germany. That’s the opposite of a terrorist organization that had been successfully contained.

Obama has been playing tactical word games over ISIS all along. He would “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIS. Or perhaps dismantle the Islamic State. Or maybe just contain it.

Containment is closest to the truth. Obama has no plan for defeating ISIS. Nor is he planning to get one any time soon. There will be talk of multilateral coalitions. Drone strikes will take out key figures. And then when this impressive war theater has died down, ISIS will suddenly pull off another attack.

And everyone will be baffled at how the “defeated” terrorist group is still on the march.

The White House version of reality says that ISIS attacked Paris because it’s losing. Obama also claimed that Putin’s growing strength in Syria is a sign of weakness. Never mind that Putin has all but succeeded in getting countries that were determined to overthrow Assad to agree to let him stay.

Weakness is strength. Strength is weakness.

Obama’s failed wars occupy a space of unreality that most Americans associate with Baghdad Bob bellowing that there are no American soldiers in Iraq. (There are, according to the White House, still no American ground forces in Iraq. Only American forces in firefights on the ground in Iraq.)

There’s nothing new about any of this. Obama doesn’t win wars. He lies about them.

The botched campaign against ISIS is a replay of the disaster in Afghanistan complete with ridiculous rules of engagement, blatant administration lies and no plan for victory. But there can’t be a plan for victory because when Obama gets past the buzzwords, he begins talking about addressing root causes.

And you don’t win wars by addressing root causes. That’s just a euphemism for appeasement.

Addressing root causes means blaming Islamic terrorism on everything from colonialism to global warming. It doesn’t mean defeating it, but finding new ways to blame it on the West.

Obama and his political allies believe that crime can’t be fought with cops and wars can’t be won with soldiers. The only answer lies in addressing the root causes which, after all the prattling about climate change and colonialism, really come down to the Marxist explanation of inequality.

When reporters ask Obama how he plans to win the war, he smirks tiredly at them and launches into another condescending explanation about how the situation is far too complicated for anything as simple as bombs to work. Underneath that explanation is the belief that wars are unwinnable.

Obama knows that Americans won’t accept “war just doesn’t work” as an answer to Islamic terrorism. So he demonstrates to them that wars don’t work by fighting wars that are meant to fail.

In Afghanistan, he bled American soldiers as hard as possible with vicious rules of engagement that favored the Taliban to destroy support for a war that most of the country had formerly backed. By blowing the war, Obama was not only sabotaging the specific implementation of a policy he opposed, but the general idea behind it. His failed wars are meant to teach Americans that war doesn’t work.

The unspoken idea that informs his strategy is that American power is the root cause of the problems in the region. Destroying ISIS would solve nothing. Containing American power is the real answer.

Obama does not have a strategy for defeating ISIS. He has a strategy for defeating America.

Whatever rhetoric he tosses out, his actual strategy is to respond to public pressure by doing the least he can possibly do. He will carry out drone strikes, not because they’re effective, but because they inflict the fewest casualties on the enemy.

He may try to contain the enemy, not because he cares about ISIS, but because he wants to prevent Americans from “overreacting” and demanding harsher measures against the Islamic State. Instead of fighting to win wars, he seeks to deescalate them. If public pressure forces him to go beyond drones, he will authorize the fewest air strikes possible. If he is forced to send in ground troops, he will see to it that they have the least protection and the greatest vulnerability to ISIS attacks.

Just like in Afghanistan.

Obama would like ISIS to go away. Not because they engage in the ethnic cleansing, mass murder and mass rape of non-Muslims, but because they wake the sleeping giant of the United States.

And so his idea of war is fighting an informational conflict against Americans. When Muslim terrorists commit an atrocity to horrifying that public pressure forces him to respond, he lies to Americans. Each time his Baghdad Bob act is shattered by another Islamic terrorist attack, he piles on even more lies.

Any strategy that Obama offers against ISIS will consist of more of the same lies and word games. His apologists will now debate the meaning of “containment” and whether he succeeded in defining it so narrowly on his own terms that he can claim to have accomplished it. But it really doesn’t matter what his meaning of “containment” or “is” is. Failure by any other name smells just as terrible.

Obama responded to ISIS by denying it’s a threat. Once that stopped being a viable strategy, he began to stall for time. And he’s still stalling for time, not to beat ISIS, but to wait until ISIS falls out of the headlines. That has been his approach to all his scandals from ObamaCare to the IRS to the VA.

Lie like crazy and wait for people to forget about it and turn their attention to something else.

This is a containment strategy, but not for ISIS. It’s a containment strategy for America. Obama isn’t trying to bottle up ISIS except as a means of bottling up America. He doesn’t see the Caliph of the Islamic State as the real threat, but the average American who watches the latest beheading on the news and wonders why his government doesn’t do something about it. To the left it isn’t the Caliph of ISIS who starts the wars we ought to worry about, but Joe in Tennessee, Bill in California or Pete in Minnesota.

That is why Obama sounds bored when talking about beating ISIS, but heats up when the conversation turns to fighting Republicans. It’s why Hillary Clinton named Republicans, not ISIS, as her enemy.

The left is not interested in making war on ISIS. It is too busy making war on America.


Malzberg | Sharyl Attkisson: Sources Say Obama Won’t Read Reports on Terrorist Groups

Also see:

WND: Ryan plotting ‘meaningless show-vote’ on refugees

Politico says the two are going to try to get along. Will that result in tens of thousands of Muslim refugees being greenlighted to your towns? The “dynamic” will get its first test over the next days and weeks.

Politico says the two are going to try to get along. Will that result in tens of thousands of Muslim refugees being greenlighted to your towns? The “dynamic” will get its first test over the next days and weeks.

Follow Ann Corcoran on twitter @RefugeeWatcher, Like her Facebook page and subscribe to her blog emails. There is much more on this at her blog!

Refugee Resettlement Watch, by Ann Corcoran on November 18, 2015:

We told you last night here that, although we are pleased with the strong show of solidarity by the vast majority of America’s governors regarding the importation of not-thoroughly-screened refugees, the real fight will be in Congress, and it is all about money!

Obama cannot advance his resettlement agenda without appropriations approved by Congress.

(Intellectual debates about the Constitutionality of the whole refugee program will have to wait right now!)

In fact, the federal resettlement contractors*** (some supposedly religious non-profit groups) are scrambling at this minute to put in motion a massive display of grassroots power to pound members of Congress and US Senators to turn back any effort to cut funding that they depend on for their survival (the refugees are their gravy train).

Also, remember that if the funds are cut, and Syrians aren’t resettled in significant numbers, it will be a huge image setback for Obama because the United Nations is counting on America to lead the way in moving Muslim Syrians into western countries for permanent resettlement.  If the US balks, it will have a chilling affect on countries like Australia that are presently being strong-armed into taking more.

Here is Leo Hohmann at World Net Daily with a detailed report on what to expect.  I have snipped some significant sections, but please read the whole thing especially some very good comments by Senator Jeff Sessions, like this key line near the end:

Sessions said the American people should not be asked to fund a population shift of Muslims from the Middle East and Africa into the U.S.

Hohmann opens with this (emphasis is mine):

House Speaker Paul Ryan said Tuesday he will convene a special task force to examine how to respond to President Obama’s plan to resettle 10,000 Syrian refugees in the United States, but some conservatives on Capitol Hill are warning Ryan’s plan is nothing but a smokescreen designed to give lip-service while refusing to defund the program.

Ryan likely has no intention of cutting off the flow of Muslim refugees into the U.S., nor does he plan to ensure Syria’s persecuted Christian minority gets rescued from the clutches of ISIS, sources told WND.

The issue of ISIS terrorists infiltrating the West by sneaking in among the ranks of Syrian refugees has come to the fore in the wake of last Friday’s ISIS attack on Paris in which 132 innocent civilians were murdered by eight ISIS terrorists, at least two of which entered Europe as “refugees.”


Ryan’s strategy is also ignoring the fact that Syria is only a small part of the overall United Nations refugee program that sends approximately 40,000 Muslims to America every year from some of the most notorious jihadist hotbeds such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Bangladesh, Sudan, Somalia and Burma.

But WND has learned from insiders on Capitol Hill that Ryan’s end objective is not to close down a program that has delivered more than 1.5 million Muslim refugees to American cities and towns since 1990 under a law authored in 1980 by then-Sen. Joe Biden and the late Teddy Kennedy.

A conservative Capitol Hill aide told WND, “Paul Ryan is setting us up for a meaningless show vote on Syrian refugees so the White House can continue the influx of Muslim refugees this year and all the years to follow as it always has.

Ryan loves mass immigration!

“Putting Ryan in charge of a fight to block refugees would be like putting (Nancy) Pelosi in charge of fight to repeal Obamacare,” the staffer said. “No one loves mass immigration more than Ryan, so how exactly is he going to make a public argument against it? He can’t and won’t, leaving Democrats unharmed, unscathed and unafraid.”

Members of the House Intelligence, Armed Services and Homeland Security panels will meet this week to come up with legislation the House will vote on by Thursday.

The “show vote” will likely occur on the American SAFE Act of 2105, the source said, a toothless bill that will allow Obama to put forth certain assurances that Syrians are being “certified” as having no connections to terrorism.

Senators say, cut the whole program!

Sens. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., and Richard Shelby, R-Ala., issued a joint statement Tuesday afternoon saying that any strategy to eliminate the infiltration of terrorists posing as refugees must terminate funding for the entire $1.2 billion refugee program.

“As chairmen of subcommittees on both the appropriations and judiciary committees, we believe it is essential that any government funding bill cancel the President’s blank check for refugee resettlement,” the senators said.

Babin increases co-sponsors AP (After Paris).  The House Judiciary Committee should now begin to move the Babin bill by first holding a hearing in Trey Gowdy’s subcommittee on that bill, but right at this point in time, the quickest way to slow the flow of Syrians Muslims (and those from many other countries) into the US is to cut the funding.

Rep. Brian Babin, R-Texas, also has a bill in the House that picked up 14 new co-sponsors Monday and Tuesday in the wake of Friday’s attacks in Paris. His bill would halt all the resettlements until a full accounting of the program is given, both from a cost standpoint and in terms of national security.

The No Borders Left and the refugee industry*** is scrambling!  (More shortly on that)

Sensing that a movement is afoot to stop the flow of Islamic refugees into the U.S. from just one of a dozen or so pipeline countries, Syria, the refugee resettlement agencies called an emergency conference call Tuesday.


Sessions said the American people should not be asked to fund a population shift of Muslims from the Middle East and Africa into the U.S.

There is much more here.

So, as I have been saying for days, the first battle of what is likely going to continue to be a long war is going to be in Congress in the coming weeks.

Call your members of Congress and your US Senators, today and every day going forward.  The vote is expected on or before Dec. 11th.

*** Remember readers that these agencies are paid largely with your tax dollars and they lobby and agitate for amnesty for illegal aliens with the same vigor as they advocate for refugees.  It is about changing America by changing the people.

The nine major federal resettlement contractors which like to call themselves VOLAGs (short for Voluntary agencies)—a joke considering how much federal money they receive:

Someone Tell The President We Can’t Fight Radical Islam By Being Politically Correct

960x0IPT, by Steven Emerson and Pete Hoekstra
November 16, 2015

Barack Obama promised to “do whatever it takes to work with the French people and with nations around the world to bring these terrorists to justice, and to go after any terrorist networks that go after our people.” But what does his record say? (OZAN KOSE/AFP/Getty Images)

“This is an attack not just on Paris, it’s an attack not just on the people of France, but this is an attack on all of humanity and the universal values that we share,” – President Obama hours after the terrorist attacks in Paris began unfolding.

The full statement by the president at first sounds lofty, courageous and dedicated to U.S. resolve in fighting the scourge that afflicted the City of Lights.

A closer analysis, however, reveals that it is empty hypocritical posturing designed to deceive the American public and feed his politically correct allies in the media their narrative.

First, it was not an attack on “all of humanity and the universal values we share,” as Obama claimed. It was an attack by Islamists who do not share “our universal values” on its infidel enemies.

Second, wouldn’t it have been appropriate for him to have issued a similar type of unequivocal condemnation of terrorism and his strong affiliation with Israel’s commitment to fight against extremism when it began experiencing its most recent wave of massive attacks? After all, just as he expressed the close alliance between the U.S. and France in vowing to attack the terrorists who struck, the President also reiterated the “extraordinary bond between the United States and Israel” during last week’s meetings with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and pledged to protect Israeli security.


Let’s roll the tape. When Palestinian terrorists began shooting and killing Israelis in every corner of their country, the Obama administration outrageously issued a contrived, evenhanded statement calling on both Israel and the Palestinians to reduce the violence. Perhaps—to be consistent with his so-called unequivocal views against terrorism expressed on Friday—he should have called on both France and ISIS to mutually reduce the violence.

The Obama administration’s role in the rise of ISIS

Third, Obama promised to “do whatever it takes to work with the French people and with nations around the world to bring these terrorists to justice, and to go after any terrorist networks that go after our people.” This is the same president who impeded the lawsuits against those who killed the 241 Marines in Beirut and won’t allow prosecutions of the Iranian Al Quds Force responsible for killing thousands of American soldiers in Iran and Iraq. He also refused to support FBI efforts to prosecute Hamas for killing scores of Americans, tried to interfere with civil law suits against the Palestinian Authority for murdering U.S. citizens and even prevented the victims of Iranian terrorism from collecting the billions of dollars of judgments awarded to them in dozens of lawsuits that Iran has lost. Jurists on both political sides have agreed that the president has violated U.S. anti-terrorism laws that mandate the prosecution of those who kill “our people.”

Fourth, this is a president who some claim is more responsible for the rise of ISIS than anyone else in the world. Recently declassified emails demonstrate that his administration sold the initial shipment of major weapons to ISIS in 2012 as a counterweight to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. It’s quite ironic that Obama acts so sympathetically to the victims of ISIS attacks, much similar to how the man who murdered his parents pleads for mercy because he is an orphan.

Finally, expect the President and other Western leaders such as CIA Chief John Brennan to begin their apologia tour in claiming that the attackers had nothing to do with Islam, with a compliant media parroting their talking points. They will say that ISIS is not religious but a “death cult;” that “jihad” really means “peace” and those who carry out these attacks are “subverting a religion of peace.” The president has prohibited the term “Islamic terrorism” from the White House lexicon. Perhaps we should ban the terms “white racists,” the “Italian Mafia,” the “Hispanic drug cartels” and “black gangs.”

Even on Saturday, the Democratic presidential candidates refused multiple times to condemn “radical Islam,” falsely contending—as the many Muslim advocacy groups say today—that condemning radical Islam is racist. Also expect the mindless talking heads to claim that the majority of attempted terrorist attacks have been singularly stopped by the active cooperation of the American Muslim population.

Islamic terrorism has everything do with Islam

Let’s set the record straight once and for all: Islamic terrorism has everything do with Islam. The violent tactics of ISIS, al-Qaida, Hamas and every other Islamic terrorist group invokes their legitimacy by practicing the religion its purest form. This does not mean that all Muslims are terrorists or that Islam in inherently violent. There are vast numbers of peaceful Muslims. But Islam is defined by those who practice it. The decapitations by ISIS proscribed by the Koran were the dominant form of punishment by Mohammed’s armies against enemies who would not convert or accept Islamic supremacy.

The notion that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam is the invention of the leftist Western alliance with anti-civil rights Islamic advocacy groups. It is designed to mislead the public, especially because of the massive amount of terror the world has experience or observed since 9/11. ISIS is not subverting Islam, but it is derived from its basic tenants. It practices Islam the same way the Iranian Mullahs practice Islam, the way Saudi Arabia chops off limbs, the way Pakistan sentences to death anyone who converts to Christianity, the way that women are treated as second class citizens in traditional Muslim societies and the way that homosexuals are put to death.

Are we to think that the pro-violent and misogynist Muslim Brotherhood—which dominates the religious and social institutions of the Muslim world in both the East and West, and all of its offspring including al-Qaida, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Jama’at Islamiya, Boku Haram, Tabligi Jamat and others—have nothing to do with Islam?

Also, sorry to break the politically correct bubble, but it has been FBI intelligence that has stopped the vast majority of the more than 100 attempted Islamic terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11, not the cooperation of the Muslim population with law enforcement. The sad reality is that radical Islamist front groups that masquerade as moderate—such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and the Muslim American Society (MAS)—discourage Muslims from cooperating with authorities.

Censoring the discussion

Indeed, these groups, who have been welcomed into the White House hundreds of times, exhort their members and all Muslims in the U.S. not to trust or talk to the FBI. Most significantly, they espouse an incendiary conspiratorial narrative that lies at the motivational root of all Islamic terrorism: They claim there is a war against Islam by the United States, Israel and the West. The terrorists who hear this narrative are then persuaded to avenge the “crimes” of the U.S., France or Israel by carrying out “jihad” that they justify as “defensive.”

It is only a matter of time before the high priesthood of self-anointed civil rights groups begin to reclaim their dominance in censoring the discussion—abetted by the useful idiots in the mainstream media—of mentioning the term “radical Islam” by claiming it’s a slur against all Muslims. Already, the media are dutifully reporting the “condemnations” of the Paris attacks by groups like CAIR and MPAC, the very same groups that say that any mention of radical Islam is Islamaphobic racism. If so, how would they categorize the gruesome Islamic terrorist attacks in Paris?

Obama’s hollow words on the Paris attacks will fade in the coming days largely because they never meant anything in the first place. But the American and European publics are not stupid. They understand the problem. It is our leaders who are disenfranchising us. And they think they will get away with it. Remember that they blamed the Benghazi massacre on an Internet video. Perhaps they will blame the ISIS attacks on a TV show.



By Jamie Glazov, Nov. 16, 2015:

This special edition of The Glazov Gang was joined by Stephen Coughlin, the co-founder of and the author of the new book, Catastrophic Failure.

He came on the show to discuss How “Rules of Engagement” Get U.S. Soldiers Killed, unveiling the disgraceful and deadly cost America pays for obeying Islamic laws in Afghanistan.

[See also Stephen on the two previous Glazov Gang specials: [1]Muslim Brotherhood: Above the Law in America and [2] How American Leadership is Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad.]

At G20 Presser, Obama Hammered with Questions About His Failing ISIS Strategy (Video)

Obama-Not-Interested-America-WinningPJ Media, by Debra Heine, Nov. 16, 2015:

At a press conference at the G20 summit in Turkey on Monday morning, President Barack Obama was clearly annoyed as he took questions from reporters about his failing strategy to “degrade and destroy” ISIS.

The president made a brief statement which began with remarks about “rising inequality around the world,” cyber talks, and climate change. About a minute into his speech he addressed the terror attacks in Paris, essentially claiming that, despite occasional setbacks like Paris, his counterterrorism strategy has been successful and will not be changing.

Reporters, perhaps remembering that the president also said that his counterterrorism strategy in Yemen was a success, wanted to know if the president might have underestimated ISIS.

After Obama said that he had not underestimated their strength, CNN’s Jim Acosta reminded him that he had initially called them the “JV team” and said just a few days ago that they were “contained.”

“I think a lot of Americans have this frustration that they see that the United States has the greatest military in the world, it has the backing of nearly ever other country in the world when it comes to taking on ISIS….I guess the question is — if you’ll forgive the language — why can’t we take out these bastards?” said Acosta.

Obama scoffed impatiently, “Well, Jim, I just spent the last three questions answering that very question so I don’t know what more you want me to add.”

He then launched into another long-winded defense of his strategy without addressing the question about whether or not he underestimated the threat.

The next reporter’s question was devastating.

“Given the strategies that you’re pursuing — it’s been more than a year now — ISIS’s capabilities seem to be expanding. Were you aware that they had the capability of pulling off the type of attack that they did in Paris, Are you concerned and do you think they have the same capability to strike in the United States? And do you think that — given all that you’ve learned about ISIS over the past year or so, and given all the criticism of you underestimating them — do you think you really understand this enemy well enough to defeat them and protect the homeland?” he asked.

Obama didn’t hide his irritation. “Alright — so — this is another variation of the same question,” he sniffed. “Let me try it one last time.”

He proceeded to claim — against all the observable evidence — that they are fully aware of ISIL’s capabilities, “and that’s precisely why we have been mounting a very aggressive strategy to go after them.”

Fox News’ Bret Baier said in a news segment after the press conference that he had spoken with a Special Operations commander currently engaged in the region.

“There is this palpable frustration,” he told Bill Hemmer. ”Unleash them. Make them go after this threat. The president talks about the costs and the treasure that we’ve spent — but arguably there is a sense that something else needs to be done.”


Fox Host Bill Hemmer Left Seething After Obama’s Press Conference on Islamic State (

Fox News host Bill Hemmer was visibly angry after President Obama’s press conference concluded in Turkey on Monday, his voice shaking as he recounted Obama refusing to change strategy against the Islamic State and calling Friday’s terrorist attacks in Paris a “setback.”

Hemmer is the normally upbeat anchor of America’s Newsroom and is not known for his opinionated commentary like those of Fox’s more conservative evening personalities. But, as Mediaite pointed out when it flagged his comments, he was “uncharacteristically opinionated and aggressive” as he discussed Obama’s response to the latest atrocity from IS.

“If you were waiting to hear a U.S. president say ‘I feel your pain,’ or if you were waiting to hear a U.S. president say ‘It’s them or us,’ that is not what you just heard,” Hemmer said. “President Obama called the attacks here in Paris a setback at one point. He was asked, ‘Is it time for you to change your strategy?’ More or less, he said no. ‘Have you underestimated the abilities of ISIS?’ More or less, he said no. ‘Do you understand how to defeat ISIS?” His response: This is a variation of the same question.’

“President Obama has made it quite clear in that Q-and-A that lasted more than 45 minutes that he has accepted there are evils in this world and evils in places like Paris, France, and this is something that we all must face today. It’s a reality in the world we live. If you’re at home wondering, with your own set of anger and your own set of fears about what could happen next, you are not alone, because that’s precisely what you feel here in Paris, France.  And if you were waiting for clarification on your feelings through that Q-and-A, you weren’t going to get it. The president’s strategy, as stated over the weekend, continues.”

Hemmer then went to fellow Fox host Bret Baier for more commentary, who noted Obama appeared angry at the repetitive nature of the questions he got about his counterterrorism policy.

Hemmer was not alone in media condemnation of Obama’s tone and rhetoric. NBC’s Chuck Toddcalled Obama “extremely defensive” at the press conference. CNN’s Christiane Amanpour said that Obama was wrong to say IS was contained and that military experts told her that Obama’s anti-terrorism strategy was not working.

Also see:

Obama’s Dead Wrong About the Paris Attacks


It can happen here too.

First off the president should acknowledge that this atrocity was committed by Islamic jihadis

US News, by Christopher Hull, Nov. 14, 2015:

Paris is my favorite city in the world.

Ernest Hemingway once wrote “if you are lucky enough to have lived in Paris as a young man then wherever you go for the rest of your life it stays with you, for Paris is a moveable feast.” I was lucky enough to have lived in Paris as a young man, and Hemingway, if only on this, was right.

So during the Paris attacks my heart broke watching helplessly as reports came from the scene of the Bataclan club massacre. One apparent club-goer, who was himself wounded, posted on Facebook that the terrorists were slaughtering people, “one by one.”

But we are not helpless. Not yet, anyway.

[READ Reaction from around the world to Paris attacks]

President Barack Obama would have you believe, “This is an attack on all of humanity and the universal values that we share.”

But he’s flat, dead wrong. All of humanity does not share Western values, or the Paris attack wouldn’t have happened.

Specifically, though the president painfully and repeatedly refuses to say so, Islamic jihadis do not share Western values.

If they did, President Obama’s cowardly withdrawal from Iraq and refusal to enforce his own red line in Syria would not have led to Islamic State’s rise in the first place – and the resultant surge of refugees into Europe, including, reportedly, at least one Paris attacker.

Yet President Obama would also have you believe that his limp and increasingly unpopular response to Islamic State has “contained” the jihadi army and kept it from “gaining strength,” as he claimed literally hours before the Paris attacks.

Of course, he would also have you believe that climate change is a bigger threat than (Islamic) terror. He insists, “There’s no greater threat to our planet than climate change.” Well, Paris – and New Yorkon 9/11 and Beirut in 1983 and well, New York in 1993 and Beirut last week and Paris earlier this year – are trying over and over to teach us different. The truth is, and the Western world is united in believing it, here’s no greater threat to our planet than Islamic jihad.

And here’s where this matters to you. The Obama White House would also have you believe that the 10,000 Syrian refugees the president is in the process of bringing to America this year alone will “go through the most robust security process of anybody who’s contemplating travel to the United States.” Just last week, the administration acknowledged that it was bringing online refugee screening outposts in the Middle East to “push out really ambitious goals” to “increase the channels” for bringing Syrians to America.

Unfortunately, President Obama’s own FBI director, James Comey, says the U.S. can’t properly vet Syrians for ties to Islamic jihad. Likewise, the assistant director for the FBI, Michael Steinback, has told Congress that when it comes to Syrian refugees, “We don’t have it under control.”

“Absolutely, we’re doing the best we can,” he testified in February before the House. “If I were to say that we had it under control, then I would say I know of every single individual traveling. I don’t. And I don’t know every person there and I don’t know everyone coming back. So it’s not even close to being under control.”

Alabama GOP Sen. Jeff Sessions, who chairs the Senate Immigration and the National Interest subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, repeatedly asked Matthew Emrich, associate director of the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, to confirm or deny Mr. Steinback’s claim that Syrian refugees were “clearly a population of concern” and that U.S. databases don’t have information on them. Emmrich eventually fell silent.

[MORE: Editorial Cartoons on the Islamic State Group]

But you don’t have to. This is where we are not yet helpless.

Refugees – amusingly called “migrants” by sympathetic news outlets trying to finesse that they are generally both illegal and immigrants – have swept through Europe and permeated the national media, as well. The image of Aylan Kurdi, a three-year-old Kurdish refugee washed up on a Turkish beach touched heartstrings around the world, including mine. He looked painfully like my two-year-old boy Thomas.

However, in a sadly goofy way, so did little Richard Martin, the boy killed in the Boston Marathon Bombing by Chechen refugees. In fact, refugees and asylees have played key roles in terror activities from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing to the ongoing flow of al-Shabab recruits from Minnesota.

And it will get worse if we ignore the threat, as Paris suggests. “Just wait,” says an Islamic State group operative, who claims that ISIS has successfully smuggled 4,000 jihadis into Europe hidden among refugees. More to come – in Paris, and if we make the mistake of believing our president, here as well.

So what is to be done?

First, we need to acknowledge that the Ted Kennedy-drafted 1980 law that governs refugee resettlement was, like his 1965 Immigration Act and the Immigration Act of 1990, designed more to maximize the influx of potential Democrats to the United States than to keep it secure in the face of an enemy like the global Islamic jihad.

So, second, Congress should include in the omnibus spending bill required by December 11, 2015some variation of Texas GOP Rep. Brian Babin’s Refugee Accountability National Security Act, which would place a moratorium on refugee resettlement until Congress deems the program has been adequately reviewed, as well as a Government Accountability Office audit of its costs. Even simply defunding all refugee resettlement from Syria would be a start, though the problem of jihadis posing as refugees extends far beyond Syria.

Third, Congress should pass and President Obama should sign the bill sponsored by House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican, which would restore control over how many refugees the U.S. admits each year to the legislative branch, where it belongs.

Fourth, Congress should pass and President Obama should sign the bill sponsored by Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz and Rep. Florida GOP Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a Foreign Terrorist Organization, just as have Russia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and arguably even Syria.

[MORE Paris Terror Attacks by ISIS Called ‘Act of War’]

Fifth, the U.S. should militarize its southern border. Attempts to “secure the border” started as early as the late 1800s and have by and large failed. After 9/11, however, George W. Bush ordered 6,000 national guardsmen to the border to at long last seal it for security reasons. Yet as the 2004 elections approached, Bush, who favored immigration expansion for political and business interest reasons, gradually relaxed his grip on the border. President Obama, who favored it to pack the country with left-leaning voters, has literally broken the law to bring people across the border and keep them in the country. Today we have what Marine Corps Gen. John Kelly, then acting commander of the U.S. Southern Command, called an “existential” threat to America.

Sixth, the president (and this could not possibly be Barack Obama) should unite the world around a hard-nosed, realist foreign policy that supports Western civilization’s allies and devastates its enemies – not just in what we now think of as Syria and Iraq, the source of the current refugee tidal wave, but around the world.

Finally, Congress should pass comprehensive immigration reform – and not the amnesty that both the U.S. Chamber and the Democratic Party use that term to describe. A real reform that would:

  1. Reverse the Obama administration’s suicidal (not to mention illegal) decision to unilaterally change the law to allow in immigrants with “limited” terror contact
  2. Eliminate funding for the so-called voluntary agencies which have turned into lobbies to expand the number of refugees ad infinitum
  3. Stop chain migration that immigration forces dub “family reunification” (think about it – why can’t families remain unified in the countries where they start out?) and that could be used to expand President Obama’s 10,000 Syrians exponentially
  4. Give the U.S. control over whom we deem a refugee, not the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, which has a rotten record that has led some to speculate about how closely it cooperates with the Organization of Islamic Countries.
  5. Eliminate politically correct, politically driven, problem-prone and wildly unsafediversity visas” dreamed up by (who else?) the late Senator Kennedy
  6. Follow the lead of then-Sen. Joe Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, who once proposed eliminating citizenship for those who join foreign terror organizations
  7. Wipe out President Obama’s illegal and unconstitutional amnesty to align the rule of law and perceived incentives to break it
  8. Likewise, end the practice of having anchor babies that those who otherwise disdain and ignore the Constitution incorrectly call the constitutional guarantee of “birthright citizenship,” and which Obama has stood on its head by granting illegal amnesty to parents of these tiny citizens
  9. Finally, let’s give those from native English speaking countries higher priority in immigration law. They put less of a strain on schools, do better over the long term and, well, are less likely to kill us: 83 percent of alleged terrorist attacks take place outside of native English-speaking countries.

That’s a pretty hefty agenda. To even move in that direction, here’s one thing that we as a nation – and the entire Western World – must do before anything else: acknowledge that we are in a war with Islamic jihadis who want us dead for ideological reasons and will stop at nothing to kill us.

Otherwise, not only my favorite city will continue to face an ever-greater risk of senseless slaughter at the hands of blood-thirsty Islamic jihadis.

Yours will too.

Christopher C. Hull, Ph.D., a former adjunct assistant professor at Georgetown University, is the immediate past chief of staff for Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. He works with clients including the Center for Security Policy, a nonpartisan, nonprofit national security think tank.

Also see:

The War That Hasn’t Ended

Paris attackNational Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy,Nov. 13, 2015:

There is always the chance that the next attack will knock the scales from our eyes. Always the chance that we will realize the enemy is at war with us, even as we foolishly believe we can end the war by not fighting it, by surrendering.

As this is written, the death count in Paris is 158. That number will grow higher, and very many more will be counted among the wounded and terrorized.

“Allahu Akbar!” cried the jihadists as they killed innocent after French innocent. The commentators told us it means “God is great.” But it doesn’t. It means “Allah is greater!” It is a comparative, a cry of combative aggression: “Our God is mightier than yours.” It is central to a construction of Islam, mainstream in the Middle East, that sees itself at war with the West.

It is what animates our enemies.

Barack Obama tells us — harangues us — that he is the president who came to end wars. Is that noble? Reflective of an America that honors “our values”? No, it is juvenile.

In the real world, the world of aggression — not “micro-aggression” — you don’t get to end wars by pronouncing them over, or mistaken, or contrary to “our values.”

You end them by winning them . . . or losing them.

If you demonstrate that you are willing to lose, then you lose. If you sympathize with the enemy’s critique of the West on the lunatic theory that this will appease the enemy, you invite more attacks, more mass murder.

France is hoping the night’s bloodshed is done as it counts its dead. And perhaps it is for now. But the atrocities are not over, not even close.

In Paris, it has been but the blink of an eye since the Charlie Hebdo massacre, after which Western nations joined together in supposed solidarity, supporting the fundamental right to free expression.

That lasted about five minutes.

Intelligentsia on both sides of the Atlantic rationalized that, while we of course (ahem) champion free expression — “Je suis Charlie!” and all that — columnists and cartoonists who dare lampoon a totalitarian ideology are bringing the jihad on themselves.

It was a familiar story. In 2012, jihadists attacked an American compound in Benghazi, killing our ambassador and three other officials. The president responded by . . . condemning an anti-Muslim video that had nothing to do with the attack, and by proclaiming that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

Islamic supremacism killed Americans, and America’s president validated Islamic supremacism.

How did the French and the rest of the West react when jihadists attacked Charlie Hebdo in Paris?

After a fleeting pro-Western pose, they condemned . . . themselves.

What happened when American commentators who had spent years studying Islamic-supremacist ideology warned that mainstream Muslim doctrine was fueling jihad against the West?

The Obama administration — the president and his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton — reacted by targeting the messengers, not the aggressors.

Jihadist terror would be obfuscated by euphemisms like “violent extremism” and “workplace violence.” The critics of jihadist terror would be smeared as racist “Islamophobes.” Mrs. Clinton led the administration’s effort to portray examination of Islamic doctrine as hate speech, to brand commentary about radical Islam as illegal incitement.

Wouldn’t that be a betrayal of First Amendment free expression? If so, Mrs. Clinton declared, the government had other ways to suppress it. The administration, she said, would resort to extra-legal extortion: “old fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming.”

American government intimidation, not against the jihad but against opponents of the jihad. Could we tell the enemy any more clearly that we don’t think we are worth defending? Could we tell the enemy any more clearly that we are ripe for the taking?

Hard experience has taught us that when jihadists have safe haven, they attack the United States and our Western allies. But as ISIS and al Qaeda expand their safe haven in Syria and Iraq, we tell the world it is everyone else’s problem — the Kurds have to do the fighting, or the Yazidis, the Iraqis, the “rebels,” anyone but us.

As hundreds of thousands of refugees flee the region — many of them young, fighting-fit men whose potential terrorist ties cannot possibly be vetted — we encourage Europe to open its arms and borders to them, promising to open our own as well.

After all, to do otherwise would be to concede that the war is against us — and Obama is the president who “ends” war.

The enemy is not impressed. What Obama calls “ending” war the enemy sees as surrender, as the lack of a will to fight, much less to prevail.

So, as night follows day, the enemy attacked Paris tonight, yet again. Jihadists brazenly proclaimed that they were from Syria, spreading their jihad to France.

Obama responded by soft-peddling the atrocity as a “tragedy,” the acts of war as a “crime.”

A “crime” that tonight killed 158 people (and counting). A “crime” by “criminals” who vow more jihadist acts of war against Paris, Rome, London, Tel Aviv, and New York.

We did not ask for a war with jihadists. Years ago, they commenced a war of aggression against us. Pace Obama, you can’t end such a war by withdrawing, or by pretending it is just a crime. You end it by winning it or losing it.

The enemy senses that we are willing to lose it. Tonight, they pressed their advantage. It won’t be the last time.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.

The Barbarians Are Inside, And There Are No Gates

1585by Mark Steyn
Steyn on Europe
November 13, 2015

As I write, Paris is under curfew for the first time since the German occupation, and the death toll from the multiple attacks stands at 158, the vast majority of them slaughtered during a concert at the Bataclan theatre, a delightful bit of 19th century Chinoiserie on the boulevard Voltaire. The last time I was there, if memory serves, was to see Julie Pietri. I’m so bloody sick of these savages shooting and bombing and killing and blowing up everything I like – whether it’s the town where my little girl’s favorite fondue restaurant is or my favorite hotel in Amman or the brave freespeecher who hosted me in Copenhagen …or a music hall where I liked to go to hear a little jazz and pop and get away from the cares of the world for a couple of hours. But look at the photographs from Paris: there’s nowhere to get away from it; the barbarians who yell “Allahu Akbar!” are there waiting for you …when you go to a soccer match, you go to a concert, you go for a drink on a Friday night. They’re there on the train… at the magazine office… in the Kosher supermarket… at the museum in Brussels… outside the barracks in Woolwich…

Twenty-four hours ago, I said on the radio apropos the latest campus “safe space” nonsense:

This is what we’re going to be talking about when the mullahs nuke us.

Almost. When the Allahu Akbar boys opened fire, Paris was talking about the climate-change conference due to start later this month, when the world’s leaders will fly in to “solve” a “problem” that doesn’t exist rather than to address the one that does. But don’t worry: we already have a hashtag (#PrayForParis) and doubtless there’ll be another candlelight vigil of weepy tilty-headed wankers. Because as long as we all advertise how sad and sorrowful we are, who needs to do anything?

With his usual killer comedy timing, the “leader of the free world” told George Stephanopoulos on “Good Morning, America” this very morning that he’d “contained” ISIS and that they’re not “gaining strength”. A few hours later, a cell whose members claim to have been recruited by ISIS slaughtered over 150 people in the heart of Paris and succeeded in getting two suicide bombers and a third bomb to within a few yards of the French president.

Visiting the Bataclan, M Hollande declared that “nous allons mener le combat, il sera impitoyable“: We are going to wage a war that will be pitiless.

Does he mean it? Or is he just killing time until Obama and Cameron and Merkel and Justin Trudeau and Malcolm Turnbull fly in and they can all get back to talking about sea levels in the Maldives in the 22nd century? By which time France and Germany and Belgium and Austria and the Netherlands will have been long washed away.

Among his other coy evasions, President Obama described tonight’s events as “an attack not just on Paris, it’s an attack not just on the people of France, but this is an attack on all of humanity and the universal values we share”.

But that’s not true, is it? He’s right that it’s an attack not just on Paris or France. What it is is an attack on the west, on the civilization that built the modern world – an attack on one portion of “humanity” by those who claim to speak for another portion of “humanity”. And these are not “universal values” but values that spring from a relatively narrow segment of humanity. They were kinda sorta “universal” when the great powers were willing to enforce them around the world and the colonial subjects of ramshackle backwaters such as Aden, Sudan and the North-West Frontier Province were at least obliged to pay lip service to them. But the European empires retreated from the world, and those “universal values” are utterly alien to large parts of the map today.

And then Europe decided to invite millions of Muslims to settle in their countries. Most of those people don’t want to participate actively in bringing about the death of diners and concertgoers and soccer fans, but at a certain level most of them either wish or are indifferent to the death of the societies in which they live – modern, pluralist, western societies and those “universal values” of which Barack Obama bleats. So, if you are either an active ISIS recruit or just a guy who’s been fired up by social media, you have a very large comfort zone in which to swim, and which the authorities find almost impossible to penetrate.

And all Chancellor Merkel and the EU want to do is make that large comfort zone even larger by letting millions more “Syrian” “refugees” walk into the Continent and settle wherever they want. As I wrote after the Copenhagen attacks in February:

I would like to ask Mr Cameron and Miss Thorning-Schmidt what’s their happy ending here? What’s their roadmap for fewer “acts of violence” in the years ahead? Or are they riding on a wing and a prayer that they can manage the situation and hold it down to what cynical British civil servants used to call during the Irish “Troubles” “an acceptable level of violence”? In Pakistan and Nigeria, the citizenry are expected to live with the reality that every so often Boko Haram will kick open the door of the schoolhouse and kidnap your daughters for sex-slavery or the Taliban will gun down your kids and behead their teacher in front of the class. And it’s all entirely “random”, as President Obama would say, so you just have to put up with it once in a while, and it’s tough if it’s your kid, but that’s just the way it is. If we’re being honest here, isn’t that all Mr Cameron and Miss Thorning-Schmidt are offering their citizens? Spasms of violence as a routine feature of life, but don’t worry, we’ll do our best to contain it – and you can help mitigate it by not going to “controversial” art events, or synagogues, or gay bars, or…

…or soccer matches, or concerts, or restaurants…

To repeat what I said a few days ago, I’m Islamed out. I’m tired of Islam 24/7, at Colorado colleges, Marseilles synagogues, Sydney coffee shops, day after day after day. The west cannot win this thing with a schizophrenic strategy of targeting things and people but not targeting the ideology, of intervening ineffectually overseas and not intervening at all when it comes to the remorseless Islamization and self-segregation of large segments of their own countries.

So I say again: What’s the happy ending here? Because if M Hollande isn’t prepared to end mass Muslim immigration to France and Europe, then his “pitiless war” isn’t serious. And, if they’re still willing to tolerate Mutti Merkel’s mad plan to reverse Germany’s demographic death cycle through fast-track Islamization, then Europeans aren’t serious. In the end, the decadence of Merkel, Hollande, Cameron and the rest of the fin de civilisation western leadership will cost you your world and everything you love.

So screw the candlelight vigil.



The Center for Security Policy’s Middle East and North Africa Briefing


Center for Security Policy, Nov.13, 2015:

The Middle East and North Africa: National Security and a Secure Freedom Strategy to respond to the threats posed by the Islamic State and the Global Jihad Movement.

  • Pete Hoekstra, Shillman Senior Fellow, Investigative Project on Terrorism; Former Chairman, U.S. House Intelligence Committee; Author, Architects of Disaster: The Destruction of Libya (2015)
  • Elliot Chodoff, Major in the IDF Reserves; Counter terrorism expertPartner, Lecturer, and Political and Military Analyst at Hamartzim Educational Services
  • Jim Hanson, Executive Vice President, Center for Security Policy, Author, Cut Down The Black Flag: A Plan To Defeat The Islamic State (2015)

Moderator: Frank Gaffney, President & CEO, Center for Security Policy.