Report From the Future: The Umma States of America

city-3dfuture-city-3d-model-rdfcjun4Written by: Diana West 

Imagine a curious soul or two in the not-too-distant future furtively peeling back the layers and learning the cruel truth: that their forbears willingly exchanged all of their precious liberties for tyranny rather than assess and educate and protect themselves against Islamic conquest — violent, pre-violent, smooth, explosive, financial, political, kafiyya-wrapped or Armani-suited. I think they will marvel because, as they will so very tragically know first-hand, Islam is so simple: its culture of death, its oppression of women and non-Muslims, its defilement of children, its suppression of conscience, religion and speech. They will be astonished, also very angry, over the way free men and women in 20th-21st centuries saw fit, not to embark on emergency measures to ensure energy independence from Islamic oil, block Islamic immigration, and shield financial markets and academia from sharia-compliance, but rather to erect a massive and invasive security state that robbed all citizens of their liberties as they fiddled away the Islamic threat. Mustn’t offend? Mustn’t offend? That was more important than saving the blessed beauty of our lost civlization…?! Incredulously, they will learn how “public intellectuals” invented all manner of “division” within Islam, detected endless “signs” of “evolution” to come,  supported disastrous “democracy” movements, diagnosed “moderation” ever-aborning, projecting all in a static of isms and ists that confounded and dumbfounded and confused. To be sure, it kept “public intellectuals” gainfully occupied, but it did nothing to stem the waves of conquest that made life in the West a sharia-compliant and, of course, post-Communist hell on earth. Obamacare Allahu Akbar.

What brought all this on? About a decade of self-imposed confusion on “radical Islam,”  “extremist Islam,” or, lately, “sharia-ism” when the threat is simple Islam. The simplicity eludes us in exercises that are endlessly Baroque. That’s what I take away from Andy McCarthy’s response today at NRO to a piece by Daniel Pipes.

Andy writes:

His column is about “Islamism,” which is the ideology I (among others) call “Islamic supremacism” — a.k.a “radical” or “extremist” Islam, or even “sharia-ism” in the recent coinage of my friend Joy Brighton . . . all of us, it should be conceded, grappling for the pitch-perfect term that (we hope) justifies sidestepping the gnawing question whether Islam itself inevitably breeds aggressive Muslim groups even if it is otherwise widely construed, or at least practiced, benignly. (Italics in the original.)

To me, this paragraph is deeply depressing. I think it’s the egg-shell-delicate emotionalism with which Andy and his peers (“all of us”)  are still  “grappling” with this simple, simple subject of Islam — the “pitch-perfect term,” after all. Why such angst? Why such nonsense words (“sharia-ism”)? That there are people in this world who see fit to follow the totalitarian and supremacist precepts of the Koran and the rest of the authoritative Islamic texts is not a cause for Christian or Jewish or Zoroastrian embarassment. That there are people in this world who consider Mohammed, the first jihadist who “married” a six year old, their model is not a cause for agonizing guilt among those who follow Jesus Christ, Moses, Pan or the wind.

Our era’s seemingly eternal conversation about the “ists” and “isms” that mainly Christians and Jews like to cloak Islam with continues here. 

Andy makes one more comment to note:

Our interests lie, as they always have, with promoting authentic moderate Muslims — i.e., the non-Islamists we are hoping will defeat Islamists.

I disagree. To be sure, this is the basis of US policy going back before 9/11 but, hard as we “hoped,” it hasn’t worked. Islam, its influence (dhimmitude) advance unchecked. This is also the same “strategy” on which the US has disastrously gone to war. After all, what is counterinsurgency doctrine (COIN), as implemented in Iraq and Afghanistan, but a strategy to empower “authentic moderate Muslims” to defeat the rebel-insurgent-“Islamists”? That hasnt worked, either. Indeed, COIN became the mechanism by which our armies have increasingly submitted to sharia norms, as chronicled at this website.

Our interests lie, I submit, in devising every public policy possible to protect our Constitution, our country, our identity from the depredations of Islamization. Any “authentic moderate Muslim” is welcome to help.

The War on Adherents and Like-Minded Groups

Obama-Osama-bin-Laden-situation-room-650x433By Diana West:

Remember how Obama chest-thumped his way through the 2012 campaign as Vanquisher of “al Qaeda”?

Setting aside the absurd and distracting act of branding this entire age of expansionist Islam and jihad as “al Qaeda,” the 2014 terrorism report from the State Department confirms what we already read in headlines, from Benghazi to Syria. Obama, having proclaimed from the hustings that Osama bin Laden’s killing was, effectively, a jihad-ender, completely demagoged the danger with a line that is now laid bare as phony.

From the executive summary:

Al-Qa’ida (AQ) and its affiliates and adherents worldwide [ie., Islamic jihad] continue to present a serious threat to the United States, our allies, and our interests. While the international community has severely degraded AQ’s core leadership, the terrorist threat has evolved. Leadership losses in Pakistan, coupled with weak governance and instability in the Middle East and Northwest Africa, have accelerated the decentralization of the movement and led to the affiliates in the AQ network becoming more operationally autonomous from core AQ and increasingly focused on local and regional objectives. The past several years have seen the emergence of a more aggressive set of AQ affiliates and like-minded groups [Islamic jihadists], most notably in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Northwest Africa, and Somalia.

It is always a little fascinating (if unremarkable) to read how officialdom discusses religiously (Islamically) motivated armies, from ragtag to high-tech, as they follow in the footsteps of the religiously — (Islamically) motivated armies that came before them, also attempting to extend the rule of Islam through conquest. We have centuries of history to instruct us in the legacy of jihad, but, having already assumed the crouch of Western dhimmitude, our “leaders” will say nothing bad about Islam on pain of being called an “Islamophobe” (believe me, as the sharia spreads, the penalty will worsen). Thus, they look and look for non-Islamic reasons behind what is, of course, just another recurring and predictable historical cycle of Islamic jihad against the infidel world.

Even worse, they seem to believe these reasons are more than figments of their “politically correct” (read: Marx-censored) minds. Even in the dry paragraph cited above there is a sense of non-comprehending frustration: How, the huffing is almost audible, could it be, after “the international community” severely degraded “AQ’s core leadership,” that “the terrorist threat” has nonetheless stll  “evolved”? Don’t these people realize they are supposed to be a tiny band of extremists who have no motivation without “core” leaders?

Apparently not. Worldwide, “adherents” and “like-minded groups” fight on — although adhering to what like-mindedness officialdom won’t say.

The adherents and likeminded groups themselves, however, provide the answer in their very names. Aside from one no doubt errant mention of “Islamist extremism,” there is no mention of Islam in the US State Department’s executive summary on what is mainly Islamic terrorism — except is in names of the Islamic of groups on the list US-designated foreign terrorist organizations. These include Ansar al Islam, Army ofIslam, Gama’a al-Islamiyya, Jemaah IslamiyaIslamic Movement of Uzbekistan, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (aka “Hillary’s rebels”) — but shouldn’t that be “Ansar alIslamism“? Army of Islamists? Gama’a al-Islamistyya?  Never mind.

Then there’s Boko Haram — “non-Islamic education is a sin” — Hizbollah — “party of Allah” — etc.

Do we detect a trend here?

Nah.

Did US Choose War over Qaddafi’s Abdication?

 

DVIDS/US Navy photo by Fireman Roderick Eubanks: Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Barry launches a Tomahawk missile in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn on March 19, 2011. This was one of approximately 110 cruise missiles fired from U.S. and British ships and submarines that targeted about 20 radar and anti-aircraft sites along Libya’s Mediterranean coast.

DVIDS/US Navy photo by Fireman Roderick Eubanks: Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Barry launches a Tomahawk missile in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn on March 19, 2011. This was one of approximately 110 cruise missiles fired from U.S. and British ships and submarines that targeted about 20 radar and anti-aircraft sites along Libya’s Mediterranean coast.

by Diana West: 

More than Benghazi skeletons should haunt Hillary Clinton’s expected 2016 presidential bid. It now seems that the entire war in Libya — where thousands died in a civil war in which no U.S. interest was at stake — might well have been averted on her watch and, of course, that of President Obama’s. How? In March 2011, immediately after NATO’s punishing bombing campaign began, Muammar Qaddafi was “ready to step aside,” says retired Rear Admiral Charles R. Kubic, U.S. Navy. “He was willing to go into exile and was willing to end the hostilities.”

What happened? According to Kubic, the Obama administration chose to continue the war without permitting a peace parley to go forward.

Kubic made these extremely incendiary charges against the Obama administration while outlining his role as the leading, if informal, facilitator of peace feelers from the Libyan military to the U.S. military. He was speaking this week at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., where the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi was presenting its interim report. Kubic maintains that to understand Benghazi, the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks in which four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed, “you have to understand what happened at the beginning of the Libyan revolt, and how that civil war that created the chaos in Libya could have been prevented.”

Particularly in light of his senior military experience, Kubic’s eyewitness story demands careful consideration. Like everything else about Benghazi, it also demands the official focus of a select committee investigation in Congress.

A short chronology sets the stage:

– On March 19, 2011, Hillary Clinton, then secretary of state, made a dramatic announcement from Paris on behalf of the “international community.”

Eyes steady, voice freighted with dignity and moment, Clinton demanded that Qaddafi — a post-9/11 ally of the U.S. against jihadist terror-armies such as al-Qaida — heed a ceasefire under a newly adopted United Nations resolution, or else.

“Yesterday, President Obama said very clearly that if Qaddafi failed to comply with these terms, there would be consequences,” Clinton said. “Since the president spoke, there has been some talk from Tripoli of a cease-fire, but the reality on the ground tells a very different story. Colonel Gaddafi continues to defy the world. His attacks on civilians go on.”

That same day, NATO air and sea forces went to war to defeat the anti-al-Qaida Qaddafi and bring victory to Libya’s al-Qaida-linked rebels. Uncle Sam, as I’ve often written since, joined the jihad.

Through Libyan intermediaries whom he knew in his post-naval career as an engineer and businessman, Kubic was hearing that Qaddafi wanted to discuss his own possible abdication with the U.S. “Let’s keep the diplomats out of it,” Kubic says he told them. “Let’s keep the politicians out of it, let’s just have a battlefield discussion under a flag of truce between opposing military commanders pursuant to the laws of war, and see if we can, in short period of time, come up with the terms for a cease-fire and a transition of government.”

– The following day, March 20, 2011, Kubic says he relayed to the U.S. AFRICOM headquarters Qaddafi’s interest in truce talks as conveyed by a top Libyan commander, Gen. Abdulqader Yusef Dubri, head of Qaddafi’s personal security team. Kubic says that his AFRICOM contact, Lt. Col. Brian Linvill, a former U.S. Army attache in Tripoli then serving as point man for communications with the Libyan military, passed this information up his chain of command to Gen. Carter Ham, then AFRICOM commander. AFRICOM quickly responded with interest in setting up direct military-to-military communications with the Libyans.

– On March 21, 2011, Kubic continued, with the NATO war heating up, a senior aide to Qadaffi, Gen. Ahmed Mamud, directly submitted a set of terms for a 72-hour-truce to Linvill at AFRICOM. The Benghazi commission made the basic text of these terms available to press.

During a follow-up telephone interview I had with Kubic, he underscored the show of good faith on both sides that created hopefulness that these flag-of-truce negotiations would come to pass. On the night of March 21, Gen. Ham issued a public statement on Libya in which he noted the U.S. was not targeting Qaddafi.

– By March 22, Qadaffi had verifiably begun pulling back troops from the rebel-held cities of Benghazi and Misrata. The cease-fire Hillary Clinton said the “international community” was seeking only days earlier seemed to be within reach, with the endgame of Qaddafi’s abdication and exile potentially on the table.

Then, shockingly, Kubic got what amounted to a “stand down” order from AFRICOM — an order that came down from “well above Gen. Ham,” Kubic says he was told — in fact, as Kubic said in our interview, he was told it came from outside the Pentagon.

The question becomes, who in the Obama administration scuttled these truce talks that might have resulted in Qaddafi handing over powers without the bloodshed and destruction that left Libya a failed state and led to Benghazi?

Had talks gone forward, there is no guarantee, of course, that they would have been successful. Qaddafi surely would have tried to extract conditions. One of them, Kubic believes, would have been to ensure that Libya continue its war on al-Qaida. Would this have been a sticking point? In throwing support to Islamic jihadists, including al-Qaida-linked “rebels” and Muslim Brotherhood forces, the U.S. was changing sides during that “Arab Spring.” Was the war on Qaddafi part of a larger strategic realignment that nothing, not even the prospect of saving thousands of lives, could deter? Or was the chance of going to war for “humanitarian” reasons too dazzling to lose to the prospect of peace breaking out? Or was it something else?

Kubic, the military man, wonders why the civilian leadership couldn’t at least explore a possibly peaceful resolution. “It is beyond me that we couldn’t give it 72 hours — particularly when we had a leader who had won a Nobel Peace Prize, and who was unable basically to ‘give peace a chance’ for 72 hours.”

It’s beyond all of us, I’m afraid — unless a Select Committee on Benghazi finally comes together to do the people’s business.

Rear Admiral Charles Kubic: “Peace President” Obama Let Benghazi Happen:

Enforcing Islamic Law at Brandeis

AHABy Diana West:

When Brandeis University withdrew an honorary degree for Ayaan Hirsi Ali after a student-professor firestorm branded her an “Islamophobe,” the campus in effect declared itself an outpost of Islamic law, American-style. Officially, Brandeis is now a place where critics of Islam – “blasphemers” and “apostates,” according to Islamic law – are scorned and rejected.

Not that Brandeis put it that way in its unsigned announcement about Hirsi Ali’s dis-invitation, which notes: “She is a compelling public figure and advocate for women’s rights, and we respect and appreciate her work to protect and defend the rights of women and girls throughout the world. That said, we cannot overlook … her past statements that are inconsistent with Brandeis University’s core values.”

Translation: Hirsi Ali’s advocacy on behalf of brutalized women is Good, but Hirsi Ali’s “past statements” – advocacy that connects such violence to Islamic teachings – are Bad, or, in faddish twaddle, “Islamophobia.” As a dhimmi (non-Muslims under Islamic law) institution, Brandeis cannot possibly honor the infidel.

Islamic blasphemy laws sanction the death penalty for exactly the kind of criticism of Islam ex-Muslim Hirsi Ali has engaged in: hence, the innumerable death threats she has received for over a decade; and hence, the ritual Islamic slaughter of Hirsi Ali’s co-producer, Theo van Gogh, for “Submission,” their short film about specifically Islamic violence and repression of women. In the U.S. (so far), punishment for such “transgressions” against Islam usually resembles an aggressive form of blackballing. There are horrifying exceptions, however, including the decision to prosecute and incarcerate Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, producer of “Innocence of Muslims,” for “parole violations.” To be sure, when it comes to participating in the 21st-century public square – in this case, donning academic robes and making valedictory remarks – “Islamophobes” need not apply.

This has long been the case. But we have reached a new nadir when a courageous figure of Hirsi Ali’s stature is publicly lashed for expressing herself about the perils that Islamic teachings pose to women’s rights and, more generally, human rights. Brandeis, however, deems such opinions “hate speech” – exactly the phrase used in an online student petition against Hirsi Ali. After all, name-calling is so much simpler than having to mount an argument. And so much more effective as a political weapon.

In our post-Orwellian time, “hate speech” means publicly reviled speech. A “hate-speaker” thus becomes fair game for public humiliation – exactly what Brandeis chose to inflict on Hirsi Ali. The humiliation, however, is Brandeis’ alone.

For what “core values” is Brandeis protecting? Denial. Orthodoxy. Cant. Lori Lowenthal Marcus, writing in The Jewish Press, excerpted Facebook comments by Bernadette Brooten, a Brandeis professor of Near Eastern and Judaic Studies, in which Brooten described the anti-Hirsi-Ali letter she and 85 other Brandeis professors signed. “We stressed that we recognize the harm of female genital cutting, forced marriages, and honor killings, but that this selection obscures the violence against women that happens among non-Muslims, including on our own campus,” Brooten wrote. “I recognize the harm of gendered violence wherever it occurs, and I applaud the hard, effective work of many Muslims who are working to oppose it in their own communities.”

Whether Brandeis counts as a hotbed of “gendered violence” aside (let alone the predominantly Islamic phenomena of female genital mutilation, forced marriages and honor killings), Brooten has underscored the source of animus against Hirsi Ali. Her “selection” for university honors “obscures” non-Muslim violence against women, Brooten writes, but what I think disturbs the professors more is what Hirsi Ali has done – what her whole life experience signifies – to highlight the violence against women and children that is legitimized and inspired by specifically and authoritatively Islamic sources. Thanks in part to Brandeis, such sources are increasingly relegated to the list of post-9/11 taboos.

Never say Islam has anything to do with terrorism. Don’t ever, ever draw a cartoon of Muhammad. Oppose “gendered violence” (there’s no such thing as Islamic-rooted violence against women). Ostracize or humiliate “apostates” like Hirsi Ali (at least until real Islamic apostasy law becomes applicable here). In other words, protect, coddle and swathe Islam from the barbs and scrutiny that all other religions receive – or else. Or else what? Citizens might decide to halt Islamic immigration or “refugee resettlement” because it brings Islamic law to the West.

Then again, those laws are already here – and in force at Brandeis.

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

As for the politics of all this, Mark Steyn nails it in an interview with Jamie Weinstein of The Daily Caller:

MARK STEYN: Well, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a Somali woman, a black, feminist Somali who was raised in a brutal, extreme Islamic upbringing where she underwent female genital mutilation, and she was put in an arranged marriage and all the rest of it. And she managed to escape to the Netherlands and get elected to the Dutch Parliament, and she made a film about the state of Muslim women, about the life of women in the Muslim world called Submission. She wrote the film. The guy who directed it is Theo Van Gogh. The film so outraged Muslims in Amsterdam that one of them murdered him, all but decapitated him in the street. His last words were, “Can’t we just talk about it?”, and the guy didn’t want to talk about it. He all but decapitated him, and his final act was to pin a letter and use a knife to stab it through what was left of Theo Van Gogh’s chest, pledging among other things to do the same to Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Now she could have done what a lot of people would do. She could have moved to New Zealand, gone into hiding… changed her name, had a quiet life. And instead, she has lived with that death threat and many others, and had the courage to speak out against it. Most of us are never called upon to be that brave. Most of us will never have to actually weigh those odds the way Ayaan did. And no one’s asking these ghastly squishes at Brandeis to show that kind of courage. All this pathetic president – I want to get his name right, I’ve got it written down here… Frederick Lawrence. All this wretched nothing eunuch man, Frederick Lawrence, had to do – he didn’t have to show courage on that scale – all he had to do was not cave in to pressure group bullies and allow this woman to speak and receive the worthless honorary degree from his worthless institution. These guys won’t defend western civilization, and so western civilization will die, because it depends on the defense of losers like this guy.

JAMIE WEINSTEIN: And people when they get honorary degrees, it’s not like they only go to non-political people. Universities have awarded them in the recent past to people that want Israel to be wiped off the map and destroyed. Is that not right?

MS: Yeah, that’s true. And that was Brandeis, a guy called Tony Kushner… I stand back and occasionally roll my eyes at the dreary left-wing hacks invited to give commencement speeches, garlanded with state honors, things that if you trend to the right side of the spectrum, you know you’re going to be labeled ‘controversial conservative’, and you’ll never get anywhere near. But this woman is a black, feminist atheist from Somalia. And so what we’re learning here, which is fascinating, in the hierarchy of progressive-politics identity-group victimhood, Islam trumps everything. Islam trumps gender. The fact that she’s a woman doesn’t matter. It trumps race. The fact that she’s black doesn’t matter. It trumps secularism. The fact that she’s an atheist doesn’t matter. They wouldn’t do this if it was a Christian group complaining about her, if it was a Jewish group complaining about her. But when the Islamic lobby group says oh, no, we’re not putting up with this, as I said, these jelly-spined nothings at Brandeis just roll over for them.

From US Helpers in Iraq to Sex Criminals in Colorado

iraqi rapistby DIANA WEST:

Two Iraqi men in their 20s have been convicted of a bloody sex crime in Colorado that left the victim, a woman in her 50s, in need of immediate surgery and a colostomy bag. Three other Iraqi men, also in their 20s,were convicted on lesser charges as accessories.

Four points set this case apart. First, there is its brutality: Law enforcement officers describe the July 2012 assault as “rare” and “horrific” and “one of the worst in Colorado history.” Second, all of these men once assisted U.S. military forces in Iraq as informants and interpreters. Third, every one of them received permanent residency status in the U.S., due in part to efforts made by U.S. military members on their behalf. Fourth, this extraordinary case and the ties that bind it to the U.S. military and the war in Iraq have received little coverage.

Most of what the public knows comes from The Colorado Springs Gazette. The Gazette has reported that one of Iraqi men used to live with a sergeant and his family on a North Dakota farm. Another received help with his visa from a U.S. colonel. Then there is the final defendant, whose case came to trial this month. His name is Jasim Ramadon, and he is the central character, known as “Steve-O,” in a war memoir published in 2009 by 1st Sgt. Daniel Hendrex. The book’s title is “A Soldier’s Promise: The Heroic True Story of an American Soldier and an Iraqi Boy.” Ramadon is that “Iraqi boy.” Forever young and smiling on the book’s cover and once a guest on “Oprah,” Ramadon, the Gazette reported, racked up a record of violent behavior in the U.S. He was convicted this week of multiple counts of sexual assault, and faces up to life in prison.

We don’t know what Hendrex, or that other sergeant, or that colonel, or the other unspecified military members who helped bring the Iraqis here now think of their proteges, but I wonder. I also wonder whether there are other veterans of Iraq (and Afghanistan) who are concerned about their own sponsorees.

Hendrex writes in his book that after Ramadon came to the U.S. in 2004, the teenager lived with Hendrex and his wife in Colorado Springs — a few years later the scene of this crime. But then Ramadon went on to live with another family. Had there been trouble?

In 2012, following Ramadon’s arrest, The Gazette sounded a note of disharmony: “At home, things weren’t going as well as the publicity indicated, Hendrex said in 2006, especially after he redeployed and the boy was left in his wife’s care. Because of cultural differences, Ramadon had difficulty being in a house run by a woman. A psychologist recommended that he live somewhere else, with a family without military connections, he told The Gazette. ‘You had this vision of how you want this to work out, and when I had to go back to Iraq, it really was tough to hear that things weren’t going well,’ Hendrex told The Gazette.”

It sounds as if young Ramadon had to leave the Hendrex house because he was unable to behave respectfully with the wife of his sponsor, his mentor, his lifesaver. Then again, maybe Ramadon was behaving himself — but according to Islamic teachings that relegate women to inferior status. The “difficulty” young Ramadon had in “a house run by a woman” very likely fell within the norms of Islamic-Iraqi society. Indeed, Ramadon could have adhered correctly to the dictates of sharia (Islamic law) and also appeared — to a Western man and woman, that is — to have “had difficulty” with Hendrex’s wife. It’s easy to imagine a hundred scenarios short of the crime Ramadon later committed that might have led to him and the Hendrexes parting ways. Call it “cultural differences” vs. “this vision.”

The problem, then, isn’t “cultural differences.” The problem is the “vision” that blinds a man like Hendrex to fundamental impasses between Islam and the West over the status of women, over freedom of conscience and freedom of speech. Such “differences” should have scotched the de facto immigration policy Hendrex and the other unnamed military members made on the fly to launch these five Iraqis in U.S. society.

Read more at Town Hall

Also see:

 


American Betrayal 2.0

2947115834By Frank Gaffney at CSP:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt should have described November 16, 1933 as a day that will live in infamy.  As syndicated columnist Diana West notes in her splendid new book,American Betrayal, that date marked the beginning of a sustained and odious practice of our government lying to us about the Russians.  It appears that the Obama administration is determined to perpetrate a reprise of this practice.  Call it American Betrayal 2.0.

According to Ms. West, the betrayal syndrome began when FDR normalized relations with the Soviet Union on the basis of a written promise from the Kremlin not to subvert the United States.  Of course, the Soviets lied.  But, for years thereafter, so did our own government – with horrific effects – by insisting the Soviets were reliable friends, and even wartime allies.

Sound familiar?  Today, Team Obama is engaging in its own, serial and disastrous betrayals – from promising you can keep your health care to a deal that will allow Iran to keep its nuclear weapons program.  But two others regarding the Russians warrant special attention.

First, the New York Times reported on the eightieth anniversary of the infamous normalization deal (without, of course, noting the irony) that the U.S. Department of State was beavering away at a new arrangement that would allow half-a-dozen Russian facilities to be installed across the United States.  Ostensibly, these sites would be used to help the Kremlin build-out and operate its so-called Glonass satellite system, a counterpart to and competitor with America’s Global Positioning System (GPS).

There are several things wrong with this picture.  First, it is not clear why we would want to help the Russians compete with the GPS.  Second, the practical effect of the Red Army having its own global positioning system is that it may make ours a more certain target in the event of any future hostilities between us, or perhaps even between the United States and Russian clients.

Then, there is the problem that Glonass signals may interfere with those controlling our GPS satellites, especially if the Russian ground stations might be in proximity to the American ones.  Another serious concern has to be precisely what electronic equipment the Russians will put into these facilities.  Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama, chairman of the House Strategic Forces Subcommittee, recently wrote three agency heads out of concern that, among other things, some of such gear might not actually be needed for Glonass – but be useful for espionage, electronic warfare or other activities inimical to our security.

According to the Times report: “For the State Department, permitting Russia to build the stations would help mend the Obama administration’s relationship with the government of President Vladimir V. Putin, now at a nadir because of Moscow’s granting asylum to Mr. Snowden and its backing of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.”

It is a travesty, but in keeping with past betrayals of America, that our State Department – presumably, with White House approval – believes that we need to make further concessions in response to bad behavior by the Kremlin.  The outrageousness of such an idea is compounded by the fact that the folks in Foggy Bottom neglected to secure its approval from either the Defense Department or the intelligence community.  Both are reportedly up in arms about it – as indeed they should be.  But will they prevail?

At the same time, the Obama administration has another betrayal in the works.  This one involves not only the nation as a whole, but several of its Democratic allies in the United States Senate.

It seems that Team Obama is intent on dismantling at least one squadron of fifty Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles as its preferred approach to meeting the reductions in nuclear forces required by the seriously defective New START Treaty with Russia.  A timeline provided to Congress indicates that, in order for that to happen by the “treaty compliance date” of February 5, 2018, the Air Force needs to begin the lengthy decommissioning process by launching an environmental impact assessment next month.

This should be a shock to Senators Max Baucus and John Tester of Montana and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.  They were assured by President Obama that the ICBM forces like those located in Montana and commanded by the Global Strike Command in Louisiana would not be affected by New START.  It was on the basis of such assurances that all three Senators voted for that accord.

These legislators and their colleagues from the other ICBM basing states – Republican John Hoeven and Democrat Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Republicans Mike Enzi and John Barrasso of Wyoming – should take the lead in amending the National Defense Authorization Act scheduled to be considered on the Senate floor this week to ensure that, as the President promised, the land-based leg of our nuclear Triad is not further weakened.  That is especially advisable at a time when the Russians are aggressively beefing up their nuclear threat to this country and its allies.

America needs a reset, alright.  It should feature not further concessions to the Russians, however, but an end to the betrayals of our people to the benefit of the Kremlin that have been perpetrated now for eighty years.  No more.

Video: The Legacy of FDR’s Normalization of Relations with the USSR

nov16 (1)

With (left to right) Stanton Evans, Frank Gaffney, Diana West, Chris Farrell and (not pitcured) Stephen Coughlin

Eightieth Anniversary of Deal That Facilitated Penetration of U.S. Government, Society

Washington, DC — Eighty years ago this Saturday, President Franklin D. Roosevelt agreed for the first time to recognize the Communist regime of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. He did so on the basis of formal undertakings by then-Soviet Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov that the Kremlin would not engage in subversive actions in America.
The rest, as they say, is history. And a sordid and still unfolding history it is.

“The 16th of November 1933 is a day that truly should live in infamy. This symposium will explore its significance both in terms of much of the most sordid history of the 20th Century — and as the predicate for similar forces at work in the 21st.”

The Center for Security Policy is pleased to convene a symposium to review that history — both that of the immediate post-normalization period, of World War II, of the Cold War and of today — from noon-2:00 p.m. at the headquarters of Judicial Watch in Washington, D.C.

  • Diana West, author of American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character;
  • M. Stanton Evans, author of Stalin’s Secret Agents: The Subversion of Roosevelt’s Government Relations;
  • Christopher Farrell, Chief Investigator, Judicial Watch; and
  • Stephen Coughlin, author of the forthcoming book, Catastrophic Failure.
  • Frank Gaffney, President, Center for Security Policy, moderator.

Diana West at 7:09, Stanton Evans at 24:15, Chris Farrell at 47:09, Stephen Coughlin at 57:57 followed by Q&A (which you do not want to miss)

Stakelbeck on Terror Show: First Amendment Under Fire and American Betrayal

912-mt05w-st_-91 (1) Stakelbeck on Terror:

Guy Rodgers, Executive Director of ACT! For America, discusses the global Islamist assault on free speech and Diana West discusses her new book, American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character.

American Betrayal on The Daily Caller with Ginni Thomas

l.jspBy Diana West, May 27, 2013

A writer awaiting the official release (tomorrow!) of a book could do absolutely no better than to sit down and talk through the sure-to-be-controversial findings with The remarkable Ginni Thomas of The Daily Caller.

In her introductory comments, Ginni writes:

Dear reader,

Diana West is a meticulous researcher who writes compellingly. She is also a new friend. Her new book,“American Betrayal,” reads like a historical thriller as she weaves remarkable details from a variety of sources, including intelligence archives from the collapsed Soviet Union. In this week’s interview, West explains the thesis of her book that she admits even shocked her: “Americans have been betrayed … by our leaders going back to FDR’s administration in the 1930s because we were penetrated by Soviet agents to such an extent that our policies and, indeed I argue, our character as a nation was subverted.” You may not agree, but give this one a read if you are ready to have your brain stretched!
This interview includes her observations about what is not being discussed in the Benghazi turmoil, why ideology matters, the inevitable erosion of trust in our government and President Obama’s record on relating to allies and enemies.

Watch the full interview on The Daily Caller’s “Leaders with Ginni Thomas”

Also see the 5 minute segment of the interview dealing with Benghazi at the following link:

Author Diana West on Benghazi: ‘It’s what happens when you switch sides openly’ [VIDEO]

 

 

Libya: “The Best of Bad Plans” ?

By Andrew Bostom:

In reality, the entire US-led NATO Libyan fiasco was the worst of see no Islam, see no jihad, see no Sharia bad plans as discussed at length in a presentationhere. (See also John Rosenthal’s superb monograph on the subject, and Diana West’s recent interview of Rosenthal)

Kudos to Texas Rep. Farenthold who pierced the Ambassador Rice talking points epiphenomenon during today’s Benghazi hearings, and grabbed hold, if ever so briefly and superficially, of one of the myriad examples of how our catastrophic policy in Libya empowered North African jihadism.

This loony, self-destructive policy was epitomized in the choice of the “February 17th Martyrs Brigade”—named after the jihadist rioters killed by then US-supported Libyan (anti-jihadist) strongman Qaddafi while they were sacking the Italian embassy in Benghazi, because Italian minister (of Constitutional reforms) Roberto Calderoli wore the satirical Muhammad cartoon image (from Le Soir’s front page, published February 1, 2006, just below, which simply said,“Don’t rale [rage] Muhammad…We’ve all been caricatures here”), on a tee shirt (also below) he exposed on Italian state television.

france-soir

 

Calderoli

At 3 minutes of this clip, Rep. Farenthold asks about the “February 17th militia,” i.e., the February 17th Martyr’s Brigade

At the 4:10 mark Rep Farenthold queries,  “I am going to ask you both this question…I am stunned that the state dept. was relying on a militia with extremist ties to protect American Diplomats….that doesn’t make any sense. How does that happen?” Eric Nordstrom replies,  “You mean like in Afghanistan where Afghanis that are working with our Military that are embedded & turn on them and shoot them…or uh Yemen where our Embassy was attacked in 2008 by attackers wearing police uniforms.”

Listen till the end (of this 5-minute segment), when a perplexed and dismayed Rep. Farenthold rather generously characterizes the choice of  the “February 17th Martyrs Brigade” as the security force for the US compound in Benghazi, as “The Best of Bad Plans”….

 

 

Nordstrom state’s that they “found it difficult to extract themselves” from the Libyan govenment’s offering of the jihadist February 17th Martyrs Brigade for protection. Why? Because they mistakenly believed that Jihad is caused by our actions and not mandated by Islam itself against all infidels until they “feel themselves” subdued and submit.

 

Video: Diana West talks about her books Death of the Grown-up and American Betrayal

betrayalDiana West:

Last week, I traveled to Florida to discuss American Betrayal:The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character in the Presidential Speakers Series sponsored by Embry Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona. The book, which, in fact, doesn’t come out until May 28, couldn’t have had a nicer debut with host Marc Bernier helming the interview. Bonus: We ended up discussing current Saudi events for the first 30 minutes, before tucking into exactly what American Betrayal is about.

 

Diana West is a nationally syndicated conservative American columnist and author. Her weekly column, which frequently tackles controversial subjects such as the impact of Islam, the failures of counterinsurgency strategy (COIN), and the questions around President Obama’s eligibility, is syndicated by Universal U-Click and appears in about 120 newspapers and news sites. She is the author of the book The Death of the Grown Up: How America’s Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization (St. Martin’s Press, 2007).

 

Is Saudi prince steering News Corp. coverage?

Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal (center) with the Supreme Advisory Board of Al Risala TV

Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal (center) with the “Supreme Advisory Board” of Al Risala TV in December 2012. The board includes Muslim Brotherhood figure and al Qaeda-linked financier Omar Abdullah Naseef (to the left of Alwaleed, I believe), at whose home this photo was taken. The occasion was Al Risala’s receipt of an award for excellence. Part-owner Rupert Murdoch was not in attendance.

By Diana West at WND:

Ever since Al Gore sold Current TV to Al Jazeera, the network founded and funded by the oil-rich emirate of Qatar, the former vice president has drawn continuous fire in conservative media. Fox News, the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal, for example, have all castigated Gore, a man of the left and leading avatar of “global warming,” for such hypocrisies as timing the deal to avoid lefty tax hikes and bagging $100 million in greenhouse-gas money.

These same news outlets share something else in common: They all belong to Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. That means they also belong to Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal.

Alwaleed owns the largest chunk of News Corp. stock outside the Murdoch family. Shortly after his purchase of 5.5 percent of News Corp. voting shares in 2005, Alwaleed gave a speech that made it clear just what he had bought. As noted in The (U.K.) Guardian, Alwaleed told an audience in Dubai that it took just one phone call to Rupert Murdoch – “speaking not as a shareholder but as a viewer,” Alwaleed said – to get the Fox News crawl reporting “Muslim riots” in France changed to “civil riots.”

This didn’t make the “Muslim” riots go away, but Alwaleed managed to fog our perception of them. With a phone call, the Saudi prince eliminated the peculiarly Islamic character of the unprecedented French street violence for both the viewers at home and, more significantly, for the journalists behind the scenes. When little owner doesn’t want “Muslim” rioting identified and big owner agrees, it sets a marker for employees. Alwaleed’s stake, by the way, is now 7 percent.

We can only speculate on what other acts of influence this nephew of the Saudi dictator might have since imposed on Fox News and other News Corp. properties. (I have long argued that News Corp. should register as a foreign agent, due to the stock owned by a senior member of the Saudi ruling dynasty.) Alwaleed hasn’t shared any other editorial exploits with the public. But that opening act of eliminating key information from News Corp.’s coverage of Islamic news might well have set a pattern of omission.

Recently, such a pattern of omission in News Corp.’s coverage of the Gore-Al Jazeera deal seems evident. I say “seems,” because I can’t be entirely certain that I haven’t missed something in my research. But judging from online searches of news stories and audio transcripts, two salient points are missing from at least the main body of News Corp.’s coverage.

One is reference to the noticeable alignment of Al Jazeera with the Muslim Brotherhood, the global Islamic movement whose motto is, “The Quran is our law; jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” The second (with an exception noted below) is reference to Al Jazeera’s superstar host and ideological lodestar, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a leading Muslim Brotherhood figure. The influence of al-Qaradawi at the network and in Qatar – where, according to Freedom House’s 2012 press report, it is against the law for journalists to criticize the Qatari government, the ruling family or Islam – can hardly be overestimated.

Strange omission? This relationship between the Qatari-controlled network and the Muslim Brotherhood organization has been observed for years. Back in 2007, for example, Steven Stalinsky reported in the New York Sun that various Arab commentators referred to Al Jazeera as “the Muslim Brotherhood channel” and the like. What’s more, reference to the relationship appears at least in passing in coverage of the Gore deal at mainstream media sites such as USA Today and the Seattle Times. More discussion is available at some conservative outlets, including Rush Limbaugh and The Blaze. (Searches at Breitbart and the Washington Examiner, like News Corp. sites, yielded nothing on these same points. Call it, perhaps, “the Fox effect.”)

Given the rise of Muslim Brotherhood parties in the revolutions of the so-called Arab Spring – undeviatingly cheered on by Al Jazeera – the network’s Muslim Brotherhood connection, which extends to Al Jazeera’s sponsors inside the Qatari ruling family, is a crucial point to miss. Especially when it seems to be missed across the board.

The same goes for failing to mention Al Jazeera’s leading personality, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, in the Gore deal coverage. This longtime “spiritual guide” of the Muslim Brotherhood hosts one of Al Jazeera’s most popular shows, “Shariah and Life.” Among other poisonous pronouncements, al-Qaradawi has called for Americans in Iraq and Israelis everywhere to be targeted by terrorists (“martyrs”) who would then find a place in Islamic paradise. Given Al Gore’s refusal to sell his network to Glenn Beck’s The Blaze TV due to political differences, Muslim Brother Al-Qaradawi and his Shariah ideology become highly relevant. Then again, maybe one man’s news story is just another man’s clipping on the cutting-room floor.

Meanwhile, the one story I found in News Corp. coverage of the Gore deal that mentions al-Qaradawi – a column by Gordon Crovitz – neglected to note al-Qaradawi’s place in the Muslim Brotherhood. Particularly given current events, this is a little like forgetting to mention that Hermann Goring was in the Nazi Party.

Could normal editorial discretion or plain ignorance be at work here? I suppose so. Still, there is that tie-in between News Corp. and the House of Saud to consider, a partnership I find more troubling than Gore’s deal with the Qatari emirate. Not only does Alwaleed own a stake in News Corp., Murdoch owns an even more substantial stake (18.97 percent) in Alwaleed’s Arabic media company Rotana.

Within the Alwaleed-Murdoch-Rotana galaxy is a 24-hour-Islamic outlet called Al Risala, which Alwaleed founded in 2006. The channel’s director and popular “tele-Islamist” is Tareq Al-Suwaidan, widely reported to be a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Kuwait. The station’s “Supreme Advisory Committee” includes Abdullah Omar Naseef, who, according to former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy, is “a major Muslim Brotherhood figure” involved in the financing of al-Qaida.

Al Risala, then, would seem to fit right into the Al Jazeera-Qaradawi-Muslim-Brotherhood lineup.

We know Alwaleed has influenced Fox editorial matters before. Could that Alwaleed influence – even his very presence – account for why News Corp. hasn’t hit harder on the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaradawi angles of the Gore-Jazeera deal?

I don’t know, but I wonder. Don’t you?

Related articles

Muslim Brotherhood “Machinations”, Or Vox Populi?

Egyptian Liberals (like their Egyptian-American expatriate colleague Mona Eltahawy) championing free speech

Egyptian Liberals (like their Egyptian-American expatriate colleague Mona Eltahawy) championing free speech

by Andrew Bostom

Vote Compass is an interactive electoral literacy application, originally founded by Clifton van der Linden, at the University of Toronto, and subsequently applied internationally by political scientists, including within Egypt.

Dutch Political Scientist André Krouwel, working with an academic team of Egyptian political scientists at Vote Compass Egypt, was interviewed for a story published today (12/8/12) in the Vancouver Sun (hat tip Diana West) about data on Egyptian attitudes toward the draft constitution. Despite Egypt’s ongoing political crisis, including violent clashes, precipitated by President Morsi’s assertion of executive powers to break the 6-month deadlock which had stalled Egypt’s constitutional draft and referendum process, Krouwel (ostensibly speaking for his Vote Compass Egypt team) acknowledges,

About 70 per cent of the population will vote in favor of the constitution

This overwhelming support for the draft constitution was registered despite the fact that as my colleague Andrew McCarthy re-affirms today (12/8/12), the charter effectively, “denies freedom of conscience,” and “denies freedom of expression.”

Dating back to within a few days of their publication in April, 2007, I have repeatedly highlighted data from Egypt indicating that 74% of Egyptians favored “strict” application of the Sharia in general. As recently as December 2010, Pew polling data revealed that 84% of Egyptian Muslims rejected freedom of conscience in the most ugly terms claiming apostates should be killed (i.e., that percentage would likely be well over 90% if less draconian punishments, such as imprisonment and beating till recantation were queried), 82% favor stoning adulterers to death, and 77% approved of mutilating punishments for theft. Moreover, just last week when 7 expatriate Copts and Terry Jones were condemned to death for “blasphemy” not a single high profile Egyptian  “liberal” or “non-Islamist,” or “authentic moderate reformer”—whatever moniker one wishes to use for such individuals—has forcefully and unequivocally condemned this heinous verdict in the Egyptian public square.

None of this bedrock, totalitarian, liberty-crushing mass Islamic mindset can be blamed on the behind the scenes “machinations of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB)”; it is merely a reflection of Islamic beliefs and  mores the MB openly shares with the mass of Egyptians, and has shared since the undercurrent of public longings in the 1920s first lead to the MB’s flowering.

Islamologist James Heyworth-Dunne’s observations, published shortly after his death in 1949, made clear that “…should the ikhwan [Brotherhood] acquire power,” it would impose the orthodox Islamic, Sharia-based restrictions advocated by founder Hasan al-Banna (i.e., such as the compulsory veiling of women; closing “un-Islamic” newspapers and periodicals, and making impossible the purchase of English and French novels; closing bars, restaurants, and cabarets, while forbidding the sale or consumption of alcohol and scourging anyone found consuming alcoholic beverages).  However, Heyworth-Dunne added that these restrictions merely represented a “…return to their Islamic customs which, in fact prevailed only 25 years ago.”Thus Heyworth-Dunne (writing prior to1950) confirms that before 1925 (or earlier, i.e., “25 years ago”)—antedating by at least three years the advent of the MB—their “version” of Sharia and its mores represented in fact a recent, previously longstanding status quo

History and hard data—including the Vote Compass Egypt data just shared by Krouwel revealing 70% support for the increasingly Sharia-compliant Egyptian draft constitution, tell us why the “Egyptian liberals” are so afraid of a constitutional referendum despite their claims it is “unpopular”.

Now that the “Egyptian liberals” have organized into a front they should be able to defeat the proposed constitution, and force a new draft process. But the “liberals’” response seems to be violent anarchy instead—which of course likely serves the MB because the MB bureaucrats may have softened, but their ardent followers of all stripes surely haven’t become less adept at violence.

The sheer, delusive hypocrisy of the “Egyptian liberals” is epitomized by Kamel Daoud, spokesman for Hizb-el Dostour, (the Constitutional Party), led by Nobel Peace Prize winner Mohamed El-Baradei. Crowing that the opposition was “winning a new round every day,” and “I think more and more people understand why we are against what is happening,”  he nonetheless re-stated his movement’s bottom line rejection of a simple democratic referendum that would validate his contentions:

We continue to insist that there should not be a vote on the constitution.

Video: Benghazi: US Foreign Policy and the Influence of Shariah Doctrine

The Center for Security Policy is pleased to present a  panel discussion with three of America’s top experts on the shariah doctrinal threat to national security. Dr. Andrew Bostom, Diana West and Stephen Coughlin will be joined by Frank Gaffney to discuss, “Benghazi: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Influence of Shariah Doctrine.”

Featuring nationally-recognized experts and authors:

* Dr. Andrew G. Bostom – author of Sharia versus Freedom (Prometheus Books, October 2012). Dr. Bostom’s earlier publications include The Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History and The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims. He posts regularly at http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog

* Diana West – author of American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character (St. Martin’s Press, April 2013). Ms. West’s earlier publications include The Death of the Grown-Up: How America’s Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization and Shariah: The Threat To America: An Exercise In Competitive Analysis (Report of Team B II). She posts regularly at http://dianawest.net

* Stephen Coughlin – author of Catastrophic Failure: The Big Lie in the War on Terror (Center for Security Policy Press, January 2013).   Mr. Coughlin’s earlier publications include Shariah: The Threat To America: An Exercise In Competitive Analysis (Report of Team B II) , and “To Our Great Detriment: Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad.” His popular series of educational video lectures on Shariah doctrine can be viewed on YouTube.

* Moderator: Frank J. Gaffney Jr., President and CEO of the Center for Security Policy

LIVE-STREAM TUESDAY: Benghazi: US Foreign Policy and the Influence of Shariah Doctrine

Center for Security Policy | Nov 10, 2012

At 12:30PM on Tuesday, November 13 at Hillsdale College in Washington, DC, the Center for Security Policy is pleased to present a live-streamed panel discussion with three of America’s top experts on the shariah doctrinal threat to national security. Dr. Andrew Bostom, Diana West and Stephen Coughlin will be joined by Frank Gaffney to discuss, “Benghazi: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Influence of Shariah Doctrine.”

The event will be streamed live, beginning at 12:30PM at the Center’s YouTube channel, youtube.com/securefreedom, embedded on this page or on Facebook at facebook.com/securefreedom.

 The Center for Security Policy presents a panel discussion

Benghazi: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Influence of Shariah Doctrine

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Featuring nationally-recognized experts and authors:

  • Moderator: Frank J. Gaffney Jr., President and CEO of the Center for Security Policy