War on Christians: The Politics of Persecution

jordanian-church-ap

Breitbart, By Katie Gorka:

In Nigeria, 234 Christian schoolgirls abducted; a Jesuit priest shot in the head outside his house in Homs, Syria; a young Christian woman dragged from her car in Egypt and beaten to death… These are some of the latest stories of Christians being hunted, tortured, or executed at the hands of Islamists.

Stories such as these are increasingly finding their way into the American media, and Americans are showing a growing concern for the persecuted church, but policymakers seem slow to respond. Not only is the United States government virtually silent on the issue of the worsening plight of Christians globally, but in three countries where Christians are currently most under siege – Syria, Egypt, and Nigeria – U.S. policy is actually exacerbating the situation.

In Syria, what began as a popular uprising in March 2011 against the repressive policies of President Bashar al-Assad quickly escalated into a civil war fueled by Islamists. The U.S. Ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford, took an active and early role in working with opposition leaders. He convened and hosted numerous meetings with the self-appointed front-men. But what began as well intentioned support eventually crossed the line into king-making.

The U.S. played an increasingly active role in determining who could and could not be at the table. Today, the U.S. policy imperative is that Syria’s president Bashar al-Assad must resign. All U.S. activity in Syria is directed toward that end, which the White House deems non-negotiable. To be sure, most Syrians want to see reform, but many now fear an Islamist takeover spearheaded by al Qaeda affiliates and the ensuing chaos more than they do the continued rule of a secular dictator.

Rather than bring resolution of the civil war any closer, U.S. policies are making matters worse.  According to international sources, arms intended for rebels are getting into the hands of extremist groups such as the Al Nusra Front, and Assad shows no sign of surrendering. The Geneva Talks on Syria have failed to stop the fighting, and sources inside Syria say the opposition leaders invited to the talks do not truly represent the Syrians. They are unelected and have the backing only of outside powers, whether the U.S., Turkey, Russia, Saudi Arabia, or Qatar, all of whom now have a national geopolitical stake in the conflict that has nothing to do with the plight of the Christians caught in the middle of the fighting.

One source inside Syria says the rebels have pushed so hard for arms from the United States and elsewhere because that is their only form of legitimacy. They are not elected leaders and do not have popular support.

In the meantime, a quiet experiment in democracy is underway in the northeast corner of Syria in the region around Hasaka. On the eve of the Geneva II talks, Kurdish, Arab, and Syriac Christian leaders came together to form a power-sharing government, one which, in their words, would respect ethnic and religious differences rather than ignore them. So far, the experiment has brought peace and security to a corner of this war-torn country. This may prove a far more successful model for guaranteeing stability as well as the rights and safety of Middle Eastern Christians than the U.S. government strategy of arming rebels and self-proclaimed opposition leaders.

In Egypt, where Christians make up about 10% of the population, tensions between Christians and Muslims have long simmered, with not-infrequent violent outbursts. When an Islamist government came to power in July 2012, with Muslim Brotherhood member Mohammed Morsi as president, attacks on Christians, Christian churches, and Christian businesses quickly spiked. In spite of a series of violations of the democratic process by Morsi, as well as the sharp rise in terrorist activity, particularly in the Sinai, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pledged the continued support of the U.S. government along with hundreds of millions of dollars in debt relief, private investment, and aid.

However, when an estimated 30 million Egyptians came out into the streets to call for Morsi’s resignation in July 2013, the United States continued to support Morsi and condemned General Fattah el-Sisi, who was instrumental in Morsi’s ouster. Following the change in leadership, Gen. el-Sisi initiated a sharp crackdown on terrorist groups in Egypt, and particularly in Sinai. Yet the Obama administration suspended its $1.55 billion in annual U.S. aid to Egypt.

According to the Egyptian military, U.S. Apache helicopters were essential to fighting terrorism in Sinai.  Their more accurate sensors and weapons were a critical factor in helping prevent civilian casualties. But with aid suspended, replacement parts were withheld, and many of the helicopters were taken out of service. The U.S. continues to withhold support for the current reform process, paying greater lip service to the importance of inclusion of fundamentalist Islamist groups in the transition process and making little or no mention of the repeated attacks on Christians.

Nigeria is now the second most deadly country in the world for Christians, second only to Syria, in spite of the fact that Christians make up approximately 50% of the population. While Nigeria has seen waves of Islamist extremism over the past century, its latest incarnation, established in 2002, is Boko Haram (which translates as “Western ways Forbidden”).

The U.S. government has consistently taken the position that the conflict is not religious in nature but is rather a function of the poverty and lack of opportunity in the Muslim-majority north. However, Boko Haram describes themselves as deeply Islamic and the nature of the conflict as fundamentally religious in nature. In June 2012, Boko Haram issued the following statement:

The Nigerian state and Christians are our enemies and we will be launching attacks on the Nigerian state and its security apparatus as well as churches until we achieve our goal of establishing an Islamic state in place of the secular state.

Because the United States government interprets the problem as a sociological one, under which Boko Haram’s violence is seen as being fuelled by lack of economic opportunity and a feeling of political disenfranchisement, one policy solution has been to spend millions of U.S. aid dollars on Koranic schools in northern Nigeria. So not only has the United States repeatedly distorted the nature of the conflict, it may be actively fueling it by funding the institutions where Islamist doctrine is taught.

Persecution of Christians is on an upward trajectory that runs parallel to the Islamist awakening and has accelerated under the so-called “Arab Spring.” Yet it has not made it to the top-ten list of priorities for American policymakers, which is ironic, given that our nation was founded on the principle of religious freedom. Reports from North Africa and the Middle East attest to the fact that at least one side of this conflict sees it as a religious war.

Katharine Cornell Gorka is President of the recently-established Council on Global Security and contributing co-editor of the book Fighting the Ideological War: Winning Strategies from Communism to Islamism. This article is the first in a series on the religious war against Christians worldwide.

OBAMA HAS NO PLAN IN AFGHANISTAN AND THE WAR AGAINST AL QAEDA

obama_military_binoculars_AFPBreitbart, by DR. SEBASTIAN GORKA:

The US commander of the ISAF coalition in Afghanistan, General Jospeh Dunford USMC, recently stated: “We are not leaving. We are transitioning – there’s a big difference.”

While it is doubtful that the Taliban could parse said difference, the statement has led to comments of Operation Enduring Freedom having led to a defeat. Since the reason we are in Afghanistan is the 9/11 attacks, this is more than a throw away comment.

Although the provision of education for females and the establishment of an accountable government in Kabul are laudable objectives, these are not the reasons for our invasion of Afghanistan. It is crucial to note that it is now impossible for al Qaeda to mastermind mass-casualty attacks against US targets from the territory of that nation.

The fact that, according to Director of National Intelligence General Clapper, al Qaeda now has operational centers in 12 nations around the world does not mean OEF has failed.

The strengthening of al Qaeda in areas outside of Afghanistan is not a function of the failure of our combat troops in theater. It has to do with the absence of strategy at the highest levels of the administration.

“Obama has emphasized bureaucratic efficiency over ideology, and approached foreign policy as if it were case law, deciding his response to every threat or crisis on its own merits.” Does this sound like a Fox News commentary or National Review? It is neither.

The quote comes from a 9,000 word 2011 piece in the New Yorker titled “The Consequentialist.” I recommend this in-depth piece, based on access to top members of the administration including the president, to all the national security types I work with and anyone who wishes to understand why America is where it is today.

The article is an attempt by a leftwing organ supportive of the administration to reveal to the world President Obama’s global vision and how he sees America’s role. After all the background details and interviews with his most influential advisers (Power, Rice, etc) — none of whom have military experience and who almost exclusively are academics or political activists — the most striking moment comes in an interview with the president himself.

Asked about his strategy, the doctrine that informs America’s actions in the world, the president replied: “When you start applying blanket policies on the complexities of the current world situation, you’re going to get yourself into trouble.” In English: no plan is better. Having a plan can get you in trouble.

Given that China is intimidating its neighbors, Russia has actually invaded one of hers, Iran stills wants nukes, Syria is collapsing, and al Qaeda is alive and well outside of Afghanistan, it would be hard to envisage an Eisenhower, a Churchill, or even a Truman saying: “Nope, no plan needed here. That’s dangerous.”

We can win against al Qaeda in Afghanistan, at least if we continue to guarantee that it can’t reconstitute its former bases or deploy terrorists to the US. Talk of “transition” instead and negating the very need for a strategy will, however, likely lead to defeat there and elsewhere.

The trouble is that our Commander-in-Chief long ago revealed why foreign policy is irrelevant to him. At the end of his 2009 speech to graduating West Point cadets, he was unequivocal. It is time to “end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility,” because “we must rebuild our strength here at home.” Notice the use of the word “transition.” The talking points have lasted well and apparently been sent to ISAF HQ in Kabul: “nationbuilding is to be done at home.” (It is quite shocking that the first place he made this clear was in front of hundreds of young men and women all in uniform on the cusp of deployment).

President Obama is clearly a product of Chicago’s political machine. From his perspective, Obamacare and the false narrative of punishing the “fat cats” (who helped put him in office) are the priorities. If foreign affairs and our military missions abroad had any weight with him, then his former National Security Advisor, General Jim Jones, would not have been treated like a pariah and eased out of office after just twenty months after being appointed, and the armed services would not be facing their largest cuts in half a century.

The cruel reality of the world is that since the Homeric wars of Troy right up until WWI, WWII, and the current crisis in the Ukraine, the enemy always had a plan and wanted to win. It is time for us to follow suit.

Sebastian Gorka PhD is National Security Editor of Breitbart.com. 

The Disappearance of US Will

obama-foreign-policy-policy-second-term-john-bolton-620x396-450x287By Caroline Glick:

The most terrifying aspect of the collapse of US power worldwide is the US’s indifferent response to it.

In Europe, in Asia, in the Middle East and beyond, America’s most dangerous foes are engaging in aggression and brinkmanship unseen in decades.

As Gordon Chang noted at a symposium in Los Angeles last month hosted by the David Horowitz Freedom Center, since President Barack Obama entered office in 2009, the Chinese have responded to his overtures of goodwill and appeasement with intensified aggression against the US’s Asian allies and against US warships.

In 2012, China seized the Scarborough Shoal from the Philippines. Washington shrugged its shoulders despite its mutual defense treaty with the Philippines. And so Beijing is striking again, threatening the Second Thomas Shoal, another Philippine possession.

In a similar fashion, Beijing is challenging Japan’s control over the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea and even making territorial claims on Okinawa.

As Chang explained, China’s recent application of its Air-Defense Identification Zone to include Japanese and South Korean airspace is a hostile act not only against those countries but also against the principle of freedom of maritime navigation, which, Chang noted, “Americans have been defending for more than two centuries.”

The US has responded to Chinese aggression with ever-escalating attempts to placate Beijing.

And China has responded to these US overtures by demonstrating contempt for US power.

Last week, the Chinese humiliated Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel during his visit to China’s National Defense University. He was harangued by a student questioner for the US’s support for the Philippines and Japan, and for opposition to Chinese unilateral seizure of island chains and assertions of rights over other states’ airspace and international waterways.

As he stood next to Hagel in a joint press conference, China’s Defense Chief Chang Wanquan demanded that the US restrain Japan and the Philippines.

In addition to its flaccid responses to Chinese aggression against its allies and its own naval craft, in 2012 the US averred from publicly criticizing China for its sale to North Korea of mobile missile launchers capable of serving Pyongyang’s KN-08 intercontinental ballistic missiles. With these easily concealed launchers, North Korea significantly upgraded its ability to attack the US with nuclear weapons.

As for Europe, the Obama administration’s responses to Russia’s annexation of Crimea and to its acts of aggression against Ukraine bespeak a lack of seriousness and dangerous indifference to the fate of the US alliance structure in Eastern Europe.

Rather than send NATO forces to the NATO member Baltic states, and arm Ukrainian forces with defensive weapons, as Russian forces began penetrating Ukraine, the US sent food to Ukraine and an unarmed warship to the Black Sea.

Clearly not impressed by the US moves, the Russians overflew and shadowed the US naval ship. As Charles Krauthammer noted on Fox News on Monday, the Russian action was not a provocation. It was “a show of contempt.”

As Krauthammer explained, it could have only been viewed as a provocation if Russia had believed the US was likely to respond to its shadowing of the warship. Since Moscow correctly assessed that the US would not respond to its aggression, by buzzing and following the warship, the Russians demonstrated to Ukraine and other US allies that they cannot trust the US to protect them from Russia.

In the Middle East, it is not only the US’s obsessive approach to the Palestinian conflict with Israel that lies in shambles. The entire US alliance system and the Obama administration’s other signature initiatives have also collapsed.

After entering office, Obama implemented an aggressive policy in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere of killing al-Qaida operatives with unmanned drones. The strategy was based on the notion that such a campaign, that involves no US boots on the ground, can bring about a rout of the terrorist force at minimal human cost to the US and at minimal political cost to President Barack Obama.

The strategy has brought about the demise of a significant number of al-Qaida terrorists over the years. And due to the support Obama enjoys from the US media, the Obama administration paid very little in terms of political capital for implementing it.

But despite the program’s relative success, according to The Washington Post, the administration suspended drone attacks in December 2013 after it endured modest criticism when one in Yemen inadvertently hit a wedding party.

No doubt al-Qaida noticed the program’s suspension. And now the terror group is flaunting its immunity from US attack.

This week, jihadist websites featured an al-Qaida video showing hundreds of al-Qaida terrorists in Yemen meeting openly with the group’s second in command, Nasir al-Wuhayshi.

In the video, Wuhayshi threatened the US directly saying, “We must eliminate the cross,” and explaining that “the bearer of the cross is America.”

***

There is a direct correlation between the US elite’s preoccupation with social issues running the narrow and solipsistic gamut from gay marriage to transgender bathrooms to a phony war against women, and America’s inability to recognize the growing threats to the global order or understand why Americans should care about the world at all.

And there is a similarly direct correlation between the growing aggression of US foes and Obama’s decision to slash defense spending while allowing the US nuclear arsenal to become all but obsolete.

America’s spurned allies will take the actions they need to take to protect themselves. Some will persevere, others will likely be overrun.

But with Americans across the ideological spectrum pretending that failure is success and defeat is victory, while turning their backs on the growing storm, how will America protect itself?

Read more at Front Page

War & Peace in the Age of Obama

3333By :

Editor’s note: The following is the text to David Horowitz’s introduction of Caroline Glick at the Wednesday Morning Club.

To order Glick’s new book, The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East, click here.

We live in surreal times. My privilege and pleasure today is to introduce a remarkable woman who has written an extraordinary book in which she argues that the only viable way to resolve the Middle East conflict is a “one-state solution.” I am going to let Caroline explain why that should be so, but in order to understand the magnitude of the task she has undertaken and the difficulties her solution would have to overcome, you first have to understand the surreal nature of the times we live in.

We are not long emerged from a fifty-year Cold War, which began when the Soviet Empire swallowed Eastern Europe and the Baltic states, and ended only when the United States undertook a vast rearmament, and applied enough pressure over enough years to bankrupt the Communist system and force its withdrawal from the occupation.

The Russian successor to that empire has just swallowed one of its lost treasures, a sovereign domain in Eastern Europe. The response of our commander in chief, Barack Obama, to the rape of Crimea has been to wag his finger in response, and explain to the Russian conqueror that the time for conquests has actually passed. We are all modern people now living in the 21st Century and we just don’t do things that way. Not surprisingly this pablum made no impression on Vladimir Putin.

In point of fact, Russia is a second-rate power and could have been easily dissuaded from this adventure or backed down without firing a shot. But because Barack Obama is such an embarrassingly weak leader and untrustworthy ally, Putin was able to laugh in his face, mass 100,000 troops on the Ukranian border and prepare to swallow Ukraine itself.

The leader of the free world today is a man who does not believe in the free world or in America’s role as its head. In the five years since a Norwegian committee gave him a Nobel Peace Prize for nothing, Obama’s policies of weakness and appeasement have made the world a far more dangerous place than it has been since the end of the Cold War, and possibly its beginning.

From his first day in office Obama has made it clear that he regards America as having wronged its adversaries, and its adversaries as having grievances that are justified. It is a view that is conveniently close to Putin’s own. As should by now be apparent, America’s president is a determined enabler of America’s enemies, and equally determined betrayer of her friends. In the five years since he took office he has lost the war in Iraq, giving up the military presence that thousands of Americans gave their lives to secure, while turning that benighted nation over to Iran; he has lost the war in Afghanistan by announcing his intention to lose it in advance and by forcing our troops to fight under rules of engagement that tied their hands and got them killed. He has lost Libya by conducting a unilateral, illegal and unauthorized aggression against an American ally, murdering its leader and turning its streets over to mobs of terrorists. In the course of these betrayals Obama has violated every principle he invoked as a senator to justify his attacks on George Bush’s war in Iraq. But then, Obama is a compulsive and brazen liar on matters both foreign and domestic.

In the Middle East, Obama has lost Egypt, its largest and most important nation. Until Obama intervened in its internal affairs and overthrew its pro-American president, Egypt had been an American ally for 40 years. In Egypt and throughout the Middle East, Obama and his secretaries Clinton and Kerry, have put American power and influence behind the Muslim Brotherhood an Islamic terrorist organization with attitudes indistinguishable from Hitler’s Nazi Party, except that it claims to take its direction from Allah.

The Muslim Brotherhood is the spawner of al-Qaeda, the creator of Hamas and the source of the global jihad against America and the West. Obama’s support for the Brotherhood has not only cost us our Egyptian ally, but it has opened the door for Putin’s imperial Russia to replace us as the Great Power influence in the region.

On top of these betrayals of America’s interests, Obama has systematically appeased our most deadly enemy in the region, the terrorist regime in Iran. In particular, he has conspired to insure that the Iranian mullahs, who have sworn to wipe America and Israel from the face of the earth, are successful in their drive to acquire nuclear weapons.

While giving aid and comfort to America’s mortal enemies, Obama has turned his back on the only democracy in the Middle East, and America’s most faithful and important ally. He has thrown his country’s enormous weight behind Islamic radicals whose goal – stated in so many words – is to obliterate the state of Israel and push the Jews who inhabit it into the sea. To finish the job that Hitler started.

Read more at Front Page

An Analysis of President Obama’s Terrorism Doctrine

obama-the-evil-one-e1389267583308 By :

Perhaps it is time to analyze the Obama Doctrine on terrorism as we reflect, as a nation, on our loses in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Benghazi attack, Extortion 17, Syria, Iran, Ukraine, Crimea and the over 55 attacks against the homeland by terrorists since 2008.

On August 3, 2011 President Obama released the National Strategy on Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism. The strategy, now known as the Obama Doctrine, was based upon the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) study group findings and recommendation developed in 2010 by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The CVE has become the blueprint for both domestic and foreign policy when dealing with terrorism. The Obama Doctrine redefined “terrorism” as “violent extremism”.

The DHS website states, “The threat posed by violent extremism is neither constrained by international borders nor limited to any single ideology. Groups and individuals inspired by a range of religious, political, or other ideological beliefs have promoted and used violence against the homeland.”

Who developed the Obama Doctrine?

The Obama Doctrine is based in large part upon the 2010 findings and recommendations of a Department of Homeland Security’s Advisory Council. The twenty member advisory council is unique in its composition, with eight members who are Islamists, three representing large Islamic communities and one openly supportive of Islam.

Islamist members included: Nimco Ahmed, Policy Aide, Vice-President of the Minneapolis City Council, Omar Alomari Community Engagement Officer, Ohio Homeland Security, Asli Bali Acting Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law, Mohamed Elibiary President and CEO, The Freedom and Justice Foundation, Amin Kosseim Deputy Inspector, New York City Police Department, Imam Mohamed Magid Executive Director, All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS Center), Asim Rehman President, Muslim Bar Association of New York and Dalia Mogahed Senior Analyst and Executive Director, Gallup Center for Muslim Studies

Members from predominantly Islamist communities included: Michael Downing Deputy Chief, Commanding Officer, Counter Terrorism and Criminal Intelligence Bureau, Los Angeles Police Department and Ronald Haddad Chief of Police, Dearborn Police Department. Richard Cohen President and CEO, Southern Poverty Law Center, was a pro-Islamist council member. Pro-Islamist subject matter experts advising the council included: Arif Alikhan Assistant Secretary, Policy Development, DHS and Laurie Wood, Analyst, Southern Poverty Law Center/Instructor, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.

According to Clare Lopez, former CIA Operations Officer and co-Author of the book Shariah: The Threat to America:

Muhammad Magid is not only the head of the ADAMS center, he is the son of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) Grand Mufti of Sudan and current president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), an MB front group named by the Department of Justice as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation – HAMAS (HLF) terror funding trial. Magid is also one of the closest advisers of the National Security Council of the USA (in particular Denis McDonough). He’s an A-list invitee at the White House. Some believe he may be the head of the North American MB Shura Council.

Mohamed Elibiary is affiliated with numerous identified MB figures who are members of the Freedom and Justice Foundation Advisory Council: they come from the Muslim American Society (MAS), CAIR, ISNA, and the Islamic Association of North Texas. He publicly criticized the HLF trial convictions and has written admiringly of Sayyed Qutb.

IIIT likewise is listed in the MB’s “Explanatory Memorandum” of 1991 as one of its ‘friends and the organizations of our friends’.”

Read more 

Dr. Rich Swier is the Publisher of DrRichSwier.com e-magazine. He was the former State Editor for Watchdog Wire – Florida and RedCounty.com. He holds a Doctorate of Education from the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, CA, a Master’s Degree in Management Information Systems from the George Washington University, Washington, D.C., and a Bachelor’s Degree in Fine Arts from Washington University, St. Louis, MO. Richard is a 23-year Army veteran who retired as a Lieutenant Colonel in 1990. He was awarded the Legion of Merit for his years of service. Additionally, he was awarded two Bronze Stars with “V” for Heroism in ground combat, the Presidential Unit Citation, and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry while serving with the 101st Airborne Division in Vietnam. He is a graduate of the Field Artillery Officers Basic and Advanced Courses, and U.S. Army Command and General Staff College. Richard was the Founder/CEO of Sarasota Online, a high technology company that was sold to Comcast Cable in 1996.

CPAC 2014 – National “Insecurity” Conservative Conference

islamists

The Republican Party has long identified itself itself as the party of National Security.  When the conservative movement has agents of influence like Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan in their high level ranks it is a personal assault on the GOP.

By :

The buzz on the floor among CPAC 2014 attendees was the virtual absence of National Security issues being debated or discussed.  During the three day conference John Bolton was the only speaker to address national security in depth.  There were two breakout sessions that tested the perimeter of national security issues but that was it for CPAC.

CPAC 2014 had a total of 57  events on the schedule during the three day conference.  Only 3 of those events discussed some national security issues.

Perhaps, current events surrounding the Ukraine, Crimea, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Egypt, Syria, Israel, Vladimir Putin, China, Russia, Venezuela, Islamic terrorism and expansionism, North Korea, Benghazi, Extortion 17, and our porous southern borders are not important enough national security issues for CPAC 2014 and the ACU Board of Directors.

Or, are there two or more individuals inside the American Conservative Union(ACU) successfully navigating the CPAC agenda away from national security issues – that will be for you to decide

khan_norquist-320x240

American Foreign Policy Ignored At CPAC 2014

The American Conservative Union(ACU) positions itself as the oracle for conservative ideological issues important to conservative voters via the CPAC agenda.  Why was CPAC not scheduling, at a minimum, one third of its agenda categorizing the failures of President Obama’s foreign policy and the threats to our nation.

This absurd notion floated by John Kerry that President Obama’s paralyzing weakness makes him strong while Putin’s takeover of the Crimea makes him weak is profoundly troubling.  Daniel Greenfield sums it up nicely, “ Invading countries is an act of weakness. Being unable to do anything about it is an inaction of strength.”

Now lets turn our eyes to four Middle Eastern failures by the Obama Administration that were spiked from the CPAC 2014 agenda.

Egypt – President Obama backed the Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohammed Morsi ousting long time U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak.  When the Egyptian people voted out Mr. Morsi,  President Obama stood and still stands with the Muslim Brotherhood, ceding most all of our past Egyptian influence into the hands of Vladimir Putin.

The new Egyptian government declared The Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, while Pres. Obama keeps political channels open with the Brotherhood further alienating the new Egyptian government.  The ACU should be demanding Pres. Obama declare The Muslim Brotherhood a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

Syria – President Obama sides with the ‘Syrian Rebels’ who are populated by various Al-Qaeda tied groups and The Muslim Brotherhood.  Pres. Obama is backing the Muslim Brotherhood terrorists again.  Pres. Obama ultimate folly was his famous shifting red line nearly drawing the USA into another Islamic civil war.  Mr. Putin came to Pres. Obama’s rescue and brokered the ‘non-invasion’ and Syria is off the front pages.  Vladimir Putin was playing chess and secured the warm water Syrian port of Tartus and cemented Russians long term influence in Syria.  President Obama however, was playing checkers and America achieved nothing other than embarrassment on the world stage.

Iran – President Obama lifted partial sanctions on Iran if they open their nuclear production sites to inspections and stop their pursuit of weapons grade plutonium.  The Mullah’s of Iran say they will keep up construction on the Arak heavy water plant, when operational, will produce plutonium.  President Obama reacts by releasing hundreds of millions of dollars of Iranian assets.  If Iran builds or buys a tactical nuke and threatens the free world,  the dangerous geopolitical world as we know it, radically changes for the worse.

Israel – President Obama is pressuring Israel to recede to its 1967 borders and the formation of contiguous Palestinian State between the West Bank and Gaza. This two state option would leave Israel geographically incapable of defending her borders.  Pres. Obama should be demanding the Muslim Brotherhood Hamas Palestinians and the West Bank Palestinians accept Israel’s unconditional right to exist and take all references to Israel’s destruction out of their respective charters, as a starting point for negotiations.  However,  President Obama is siding with The Muslim Brotherhood again as he did in Egypt and Syria.

These four national security issues plus homegrown Islamic terrorism should have front and center on the CPAC 2014 agenda. Why weren’t they you ask?  For the answer to this question, all roads lead back to two individuals at the American Conservative Union, Grover Norquist and Suhail Kahn.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former CIA Director James Woolsey, former Florida Rep. Allen West, retired Army Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, former chief assistant U.S. attorney Andrew McCarthy, and Frank Gaffney are putting their substantive knowledge of national security that this information on Norquist/Khan cannot be suppressed, ignored, or mischaracterized as it has been to date.  The information these experts above are referring to is Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan’s documented ties to The Muslim Brotherhood and other convicted Islamic terrorists.  (See Center For Security Policies 51 Page Report)

Suhail Kahn is an acting Board member of American Conservative Union.

Suhail Kahn, on video, declares that he has “devoted his life to the Ummah, the Muslim Nation’ ‘What are our oppressors going to do with people like us who love death more than they love life?”

Suhail Khan praises terrorists at 1999 ISNA conference from SuhailKhan Exposed on Vimeo.

Mr. Kahn has publicly acknowledged his parents’ leadership role in organizations that have been identified by the federal government as Muslim Brotherhood front groups, namely the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Muslim Student Association(MSA).

In June of 2001, at an American Muslim Council event Mr. Kahn personally thanked convicted terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi as someone, “who have been helping me keep going…and for being very supportive of me.”

At CPAC 2011 Suhail Kahn denied on camera The Muslim Brotherhood exists.  At CPAC 2014 he admitted there is a Muslim Brotherhood but he doesn’t know much about them.

At CPAC 2011 David Horowitz said, “Suhail Khan’s failure to disassociate himself from his parents’ movement (The Muslim Brotherhood) is instructive:  Horowitz went on to say, “When an honest person has been a member of a destructive movement and leaves it, he will feel compelled to repudiate it publicly and to warn others of the dangers it poses.  This is a sure test of whether someone has left the Muslim Brotherhood or not.”

At a 1999 ISNA Convention Suhail Khan articulated his heartfelt identity which in and of itself should cause great concern to the ACU. Suhail Khan said, “Our freedoms, my dear brothers and sisters, are under attack…And those rights must be defended with all the determination, all the resources, all the unyielding vigilance of the believing mujahid.  That is the spirit of Islam.  The mark of the Muslim.”

Mujahid is singular for Mujahideen which translates as a follower of Islam who struggles in the path of Allah.  The word is from the same Arabic triliteral root as Jihad.  Mujahideen has been closely associated with radical Islam, encompassing several militant groups and struggles.

Grover Norquist

Grover Norquist also has documented ties to convicted terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi.  Alamoudi provided seed money for Norquist’s Islamic Institute which shares space with his Americans For Tax Reform.  Norquist was instrumental in getting the terrorist Alamoudi access to a White House prayer service after the 9/11/2001 attacks.

Mr. Norquist “served as a key facilitator between Al-Arian, Alamoudi and the White House.  … In June 2001, Al-Arian was among the members of the American Muslim Council invited to the White House complex.  … The next month, the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom—a civil liberties group headed by Al-Arian—gave Norquist an award for his work to abolish the use of secret intelligence evidence in terrorism cases.” (Rep. Frank Wolf (R.-Va.)

The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) agenda is determined by the American Conservative Union(ACU).”

Sami Al-Arian pled guilty in 2006 ‘to a charge of conspiring to provide services to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), a specially designated terrorist organization, in violation of U.S. law.

For a window into Mr. Norquist’s core beliefs, he used Americans for Tax Reform to circulate a petition in support of the ‘Ground Zero Mosque’.  The Ground Zero Mosque was the failed multi million dollar mega Mosque project a block away from the fallen twin towers on 9/11/2001.

In 2004, at age 48, Mr. Norquist married a Palestinian Muslim name Samah Alrayyes.  Ms. Alrayyes-Norquist was the Director of the Islamic Free Market Institute which was connected financially to convicted terrorist Abduraham Alamoudi and founded by Grover Norquist.

Read more at Dr. Rich Swier’s blog

CRUZ TO BREITBART NATIONAL SECURITY CONFERENCE: OBAMA NOT DEFENDING LIBERTY

Cruz213aby BREITBART TEXAS:

NATIONAL HARBOR, MARYLAND–Texas Senator Ted Cruz addressed Breitbart News’ “The Uninvited II: the National Security Action Summit” today to speak for the cause of liberty and freedom from “Kiev to Caracas.”

“Just yesterday, President Obama dubbed the violence in Ukraine a matter of international law. He said, ‘President Putin seems to have a different set of lawyers making a different set of interpretations, but I don’t think that’s fooling anybody.’ I am confident Putin is not consulting lawyers, and he’s not trying to fool anyone. He’s trying to re-assemble the Soviet Union by first invading Ukraine. The people of Ukraine bravely stood up against one of the biggest bullies on the planet, and the United States should have been standing with them from the first moment.

“We need to stand with the protestors from Kiev to Caracas who cry out for freedom and closer ties to the United States.  We need to make perfectly clear that the United States will never allow Israel to be isolated on the world stage, and that we stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Israel against the threat of Iran,” Cruz argued.

 

TED CRUZ STAKES OUT BOLD FOREIGN POLICY VISION TO RAND PAUL’S RIGHT 

by :

In what may have been his most significant foreign policy speech to date, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) on Thursday positioned his Reaganesque foreign policy views between the hawkish Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) and what he described as the dovish Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-KY), while blasting President Barack Obama as a fool on the international stage.

Speaking at the second annual Uninvited II national security forum across the street from the Conservative Political Action Convention, Cruz brutally mocked the Obama administration’s description of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as an “uncontested arrival.” He called this yet another example of Obama’s “tortured semantics” which have weakened America and emboldened its enemies in a way that Reagan could not have imagined.

Breitbart News Network co-hosted the Uninvited II summit at which Cruz was speaking.

Cruz said that the Obama administration has used the term “kinetic action” to describe its Libya failures, “spontaneous protests” to describe the terrorist attacks in Benghazi that killed four Americans, and a “display of international unity” to describe the nuclear deal with Iran that has elsewhere been described as a “historic mistake.”

“These are the words of fools,” Cruz said.

He said such equivalence has “left the world wondering whether he will defend the liberties that Americans hold dear and act to protect the interests of the United States.”

He further criticized Obama for saying that Putin has a “different set of lawyers making a different set of interpretations,” quipping that he did not think Putin consulted his team of lawyers before going into Crimea.

Cruz said that his foreign policy views were modeled after Ronald Reagan’s and were between the neoconservative views of John McCain and the libertarian beliefs of Paul, a potential 2016 rival who has been working to differentiate himself from the so-called isolationist views of his father, former Rep. Ron Paul.

Cruz said he agreed with McCain that a nuclear-armed Iran posed the greatest threat and on the need to stand with Israel. Meanwhile, he said he agreed with Paul on the lack of a clear case for intervention in Syria.

Cruz mentioned that Vladimir Putin said in a New York Times op-ed that “American exceptionalism is a dangerous thing” and said he felt that Obama may have taken Putin’s words a little too much to heart.

“It has been dangerous to tyrants and dictators throughout the course of history when the American people understand we are exceptional and defend liberty on the global stage,” Cruz said.

Cruz praised Reagan for understanding the “undeniable truth that the Soviet empire was an evil empire” and being able to say it in a way that everyone could understand.

Seeming to invite a comparison to the way his leadership in the Senate has been received by official Washington, Cruz mentioned that Reagan was “resoundingly criticized for his lack of nuance.”

Reagan did not care that the foreign policy apparatchiks were “aghast” at such “simplistic reason” when Reagan went to the Brandenburg Gate and said things like, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” Cruz added.

“Where’s that clarity today? “Cruz asked. “History teaches that appeasement leads to more and more violence.”

After saying that “no rational person is interested in a shooting war between the United States and Russia,” Cruz offered a variety of solutions to the brewing overseas conflict, saying America should “immediately sign a free trade agreement with Ukraine” and export liquefied natural gas there, which would create jobs at home and lessen Russia’s ability to use its natural resources as “economic blackmail.”

Read more

JOHN BOLTON AT CPAC: REPLACE OBAMA’S ‘DRIFT, DECLINE, AND DEFEATISM’ WITH REAGANITE ‘PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH’

Bolton-CPACjpgBreitbart, by :

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton told a receptive crowd at the Conservative Political Action Convention on Thursday that it is time to replace the Obama-Kerry-Clinton-Biden foreign policy of “drift, decline, and defeatism” with a Reaganite foreign policy of “peace through strength.”

“We meet at a time of true national security crisis,” Bolton told the gathered conservatives. “Our biggest national security crisis,” he said, “is Barack Obama.”

Obama “is uninterested in U.S. national security. He considers our strength part of the problem,” Bolton said, citing a 2009 Obama speech in which the president said “no world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed” as an example.

“He is a Wilsonian,” Bolton said of Obama. Bolton quoted Woodrow Wilson’s statement that “there must not be a balance of power, but a community of power,” in the world, and quipped that “Wilson wasn’t even a community organizer.”

Bolton pointed to Republican Teddy Roosevelt as a better model for the use of American power in the world. “The answer was provided by Teddy Roosevelt, ” Bolton stated, “who said ‘first and foremost we are to make the world safe for ourselves.’ “

Bolton also cautioned against the rise of isolationism among some conservatives. “There are those even within our movement who say America will be safe enough if we do nothing. . . Let’s call this what it is… isolationism.”

Bolton said that “multilateralism and isolationism don’t protect the United States.” He added that “[i]gnoring threats to our national security is the Obama Doctrine. The contrast with Republicans could not be clearer. Republicans believe in peace through strength not isolationism or multilateralism.”

Bolton noted that “Adam Smith wrote that ‘the first duty of the sovereign is protecting a society from the violence of other nations.’ Republicans call a strong defense budget the vital margin of safety.”

Bolton blasted Obama’s dealing with Russia, saying “Vladimir Putin has a strategy. Obama has nothing.” Bolton noted that Russia has bolstered Assad’s regime in Syria, is selling weapons to Egypt, and is “re-establishing influence in Cuba and Venezuela.”

Bolton also stated that Obama is failing to respond to the rising challenge from China, which is establishing its “first blue water [ocean as opposed to river] naval capability in 600 years.” In addition, Bolton noted that “China has the best cyber warfare capability of any country on earth.”

The Obama administration policy on terrorism has also failed, according to Bolton.”Obama’s Director of National Intelligence testified a few weeks ago that we are no safer than we were on 9-11 (2001),” he said. In addition, he noted that “the black flag of Al Qaeda now flies” in key cities in Iraq.

Bolton saved his harshest criticism of President Obama’s foreign policy for Libya.

“Worst of all is Libya,” he said, calling it “the paradigm of Obama Administration failure.”

“The attack on Benghazi [in 2012]. . . the killing of Ambassador Chris Stevens was the murder of the President’s personal representative.”

“Since then,” Bolton charged, “the President has done nothing to avenge Chris Stevens’ death.” Foreign powers see this action, Bolton said, and conclude that “under Barack Obama you can murder his personal representative and get away scot-free”

“We do not accept an American President who is weak, indecisive,  and apologetic about our country,” Bolton concluded, adding that “I’ve established a PAC and SuperPAC to help candidates in 2014 and 2016 who understand this.”

You can see Bolton’s full speech here:

Obama Budget Slashes Israeli Missile Defense Programs

An Iron Dome missile interceptor overlooking Haifa, Israel / AP

An Iron Dome missile interceptor overlooking Haifa, Israel / AP

By :

Joint U.S.-Israeli missile defense programs would be reduced by nearly $200 million under President Barack Obama’s fiscal year 2015 budget proposal, prompting concern from lawmakers who have fought to keep the critical defense programs fully funded.

Israeli Cooperative Programs—which include the Arrow II, Arrow III, and David’s Sling missile defense systems—are slated to receive $96.8 million under Obama’s newly released budget proposal, a reduction of nearly $200 million from the previous year’s finalized levels.

The funding dip hits as the White House seeks to significantly reduce the overall U.S. defense budget and enact severe cuts to the U.S. military.

Rep. Doug Lamborn (R., Colo.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, slammed the administration for insufficiently funding the joint missile projects, which benefit both Israeli and American security.

“Once again, the administration is proposing hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts to our cooperative missile defense work with Israel,” Lamborn said. “This is very disappointing and it is irresponsible to cut funding to a steadfast ally in an extremely volatile region of the world.”

As America’s defense budget shrinks under the weight of sequestration and other budgetary pressures, lawmakers like Lamborn are worried that Israel’s security needs will be jeopardized.

Missile defense programs have long been a priority issue for the Israelis, who are already employing several of these systems to counter an influx of rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip and other areas.

Read more at Free Beacon

Also see:

President Not-Present

obama_weakness_big_1-27-14-2By TOM BLUMER:

We now know — even the Associated Press, better described as the Administration’s Press [1], has now acknowledged it — that President Barack Obama, in AP’s words [2], “did not participate” in a White House meeting of his national security team Saturday morning “to get updates on the situation and discuss policy options” in reaction to Russia’s invasion and takeover [3] of Crimea and threatened military intervention in the rest of Ukraine. Those who need help getting past AP’s whitewashing need to understand that “did not participate” means “did not attend.”

Last time I checked, the president of the United States was the nation’s commander in chief [4], the person who is supposed to be primarily responsible for the nation’s security and well-being in its relations with the rest of the world. He happens to live in the same White House where the national security meeting was held. PJ Media’s Bridget Johnson has noted [5] that Obama “had no public events on his schedule.”

What Obama apparently chose to miss was not a “3 a.m. phone call [6].” It was a daytime meeting at his own residence. It concerned a country whose guarantee of security, embodied in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, [7] was confirmed by Obama himself [8] in December 2009.

Congress and the American people should demand to know exactly what could possibly have been more important than Obama’s attendance at that meeting. We all know that if a President Romney or George W. Bush had acted similarly, the press would already be demanding an answer for us, and quite properly so. Instead, we get the AP’s aforementioned indifference.

It gets worse. Obama was briefed after the fact [9] by a “national security team” led by none other than Susan Rice.

Five days after the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, which took the lives of U.S. Libyan Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, Rice went on the Sunday talk shows to claim that an anti-Muslim video inspired the “spontaneous – not premeditated [10]” attack. Just last week, in the face of overwhelming, irrefutable evidence [11] to the contrary, she contended [12] that “the notion that somehow I or anybody else in the administration misled the American people is patently false.”

Six months after it became obvious that the Senate would not confirm her [13] as the country’s next secretary of State, Obama rewarded Rice by elevating her [14] to her current perch as national security adviser. So the president’s chief informant has every reason to tell Obama things which would further his agenda, which may or may not coincide with an agenda consistent with the country’s security.

Is Obama’s real agenda different? There’s ample justification for believing that’s the case. In March 2012, he was caught on an open mic [15] telling then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he would have “more flexibility” to deal with contentious U.S.-Russian issues after that year’s presidential election. Perhaps part of that “flexibility” includes pretending to have a problem with a Russian return to de facto control of Ukraine while doing nothing about it. If so, no wonder Obama was a no-show on Saturday morning. Why bother coming downstairs to sit in on a meeting about something when the result is already a foregone conclusion? Maybe his 90-minute Saturday afternoon phone call with Russian President Vladimir was really a plea: “Slow down, guy, you’re going so fast that it’s making me look bad.”

Obama may also be porting his patented habit of disclaiming responsibility for anything negative that happens in his administration from stateside matters to international affairs.

Read more at PJ Media

Iran’ Nuclear Deal: Washington’s greatest mistake

By Walid Phares:

The Obama administration, in its first and second terms, has committed strategic mistakes in the Middle East which will undermine U.S. national and security interests for many years, even under subsequent administrations after 2016.

Obama & Rouhani

The damage done is severe, and a remedy seems out of reach unless earth shattering changes are applied to Washington’s foreign policy—either under the incumbent’s administration or the next. The common core of U.S. strategic mistakes has been the perception of partners in the region since day one of the post-Bush presidency. While Bush’s narrative on backing pro-democracy forces was right on track, the bureaucracy’s actions betrayed the White House’s global aim. By the time the Obama administration installed itself on Pennsylvania Avenue in 2009, little had been accomplished by the Bush bureaucrats in regards to identifying these pro-democracy forces and supporting them. When the current administration replaced Bush, however, civil society groups in the Middle East were systematically abandoned—aid to their liberal forces was cut off and engagement with the radicals became priority. The mistakes of the Bush bureaucracy became the official policy of the Obama administration.

Washington’s “new beginnings” in the region moved American Mideast policy in a backward direction on two major tracks. The first derailment was to partner with the Muslim Brotherhood, not the secular NGOs, in an attempt to define the future of Arab Sunni countries. The second was to engage the Iranian regime, not its opposition, in attempt to define future relations with the Shia sphere of the region. These were strategic policy decisions planned years before the Arab Spring, not a pragmatic search for solutions as upheavals began. Choosing the Islamists over the Muslim moderates and reformers has been an academically suggested strategy adapted to potential interests—even though it represents an approach contrary to historically successful pathways.  In June 2009, President Obama sent a letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader asking for “engagement.” This move, coupled with Obama’s abandonment of the civil revolt in Iran that same month, sent a comforting message to the ruling Khomeinists: The United States is retreating from containment and will not support regime change in Iran. That undeniably emboldened Tehran to go on the offensive in the region after less than a decade of status quo.

The nuclear program was boldly defended despite American and UN economic sanctions; Iranian penetration of Iraq deepened; support to Hezbollah escalated with a presidential visit to Lebanon by Ahmedinijad; and aggressive backing of pro-Iranian elements in Arabia was sustained. The Arab Spring revealed more assertive Iranian behavior as Pasdaran and Hezbollah militias were dispatched to Syria in support of the struggling Assad regime. Across the region, the Ayatollahs increased their support to regimes and organizations bent on crushing civil society uprisings and also clamped down on their own oppositions—both inside the country and abroad. Tehran used Washington’s unending search for dialogue with the Ayatollahs as an opportunity to attack the exiled Iranian community inside Iraq, one of the best cards in the international community’s hands to pressure the Iranian regime. The tragedy of dismantling Camp Ashraf ran parallel to a systematic persecution of Iranian dissidents who rose in 2009 against the mullahs. U.S. retreat from Iran’s containment led to an unparalleled bleeding of the political opposition, the only long term hope for a real change in Iran.

Read more at HNN

The “why?” of Muslim Brotherhood outreach

By Leslie Burt:

In his June 4, 2013 report, “Blind to Terror: The U.S. Government’s Disastrous Muslim Outreach Efforts and the Impact on U.S. Policy,”  Patrick Poole asks the question,

Why has the U.S. government called certain Islamic groups supporters of terror in federal court, and then turned around and called these same organizations “moderates” and embraced them as outreach partners? In a number of cases from the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations, the leaders of these organizations (some of whom are now in federal prison) were under active investigation at the same time they were meeting with senior U.S. leaders at the White House and the Capitol and helping develop U.S. policy. Now these same Islamic organizations and leaders have openly encouraged a purge of counterterrorism training that have effectively blinded law enforcement, homeland security, and intelligence agencies to active terror threats as seen in the inaction of the FBI concerning the Boston bombing suspects and other terror cases. This study poses serious questions as to the efficacy and even security concerns about U.S. government outreach to Islamic groups, which often turn out to be Islamist militants, enemies of Islamic moderation, and even supporters of terrorism.

***

Perhaps the most baffling element to the U.S. government’s Muslim outreach since the 1990s is the steadfast refusal by its supporters to acknowledge the mountain of evidence that testifies to its catastrophic failure. What pathology can explain how prosecutors can identify Muslim leaders and organizations as supporters of terrorism in federal court, and at the same time high-ranking government officials embrace these same leaders and groups as moderates and heatedly defend their inclusion as outreach partners? The answer might only lie in the realm of theology and not psychology.

While it is true that the Muslim Botherhood has, through very effective influence operations, affected U.S. counterterrorism policy we have to remember that it was the U.S. that originally reached out to them starting clear back in the Eisenhower administration. Our intent was to influence them and use them to counterbalance our enemies. However, it has turned out that the Muslim Brotherhood has won the influence game by taking advantage of our ignorance of their true theologically driven agenda. We’ve learned the hard way that they are only moderate while they are politically weak. When empowered, the mask comes off to reveal their true violent extremist nature. The evidence has been there all along for anyone taking the time to examine the history of the Muslim Brotherhood since their formation in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna

In my May 6, 2013 post , Anatomy of a Coverup  which I will re-post here, Daniel Greenfield gives what I believe is the definitive answer to Poole’s question. Why are we partnering with terrorists? Do click on the link and read his entire article. It explains a lot.

As the steady drumbeat for a select committee to investigate Benghazi continues, hopefully the drip, drip, drip of new information will edge us closer to examining the whole Middle East foreign policy rationale of the Obama administration. Elections have consequences and foreign policy should be a campaign issue in the coming 2016 presidential elections. But CPAC so far is playing it down:

CPAC AGAIN FAILS TO ADDRESS FOREIGN POLICY

Could it be the influence of Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan? Sign the petition:

Tell The ACU: Grover Norquist Must Go

dereliction-of-duty-five

Anatomy of a Coverup

We now have whistle blowers set to testify that what happened in Benghazi is very different than what the Obama administration has told us. We also have the proof that the Benghazi talking points were scrubbed. The question being asked now is why did Hillary Clinton and so many top administration officials, including General Petraeus, go to such extraordinary lengths to present a false narrative?

Daniel Greenfield has written a very good explanation of the Obama administration’s foreign policy towards the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda in his piece, “Obama’s Big Brotherhood Bet” at Front Page that helps answer this question:

In the spring of 2009, Obama went down to Cairo. He skipped the gaming tables at the Omar Khayyam Casino at the Cairo Marriott and instead went over to the Islamist baccarat tables at Cairo University and bet big on the Muslim Brotherhood.

Obama had insisted on Muslim Brotherhood attendance at a speech that was part apology and part abandonment. The apology was for American power and the abandonment was of American allies.

The text of the speech was largely inconsequential in the same way that most of the words that scroll across the teleprompters of politicians are. In politics, the speech is often the medium while the timing, the audience and the location are the message. And the message was that the Brotherhood’s hour had come.

Obama was following through on an idea that had long been an article of faith on the left. The idea was that the United States had invested in a defunct status quo and that our biggest problems were our allies. The only way out was to toss them all overboard.

Generations of diplomats had griped from their walled compounds in Riyadh, Kuwait City or Doha that many of our problems in the region would go away if Israel somehow went away. But this was bigger. It involved dumping every single allied government in the region to start fresh with new governments elected through popular democracy and enjoying popular support. It would be a new beginning. And a new beginning was also the title of the Cairo speech.

The idea wasn’t new, but it was right up there with proposals to unilaterally abandon our nuclear arsenal or dedicate ten percent of the budget to foreign aid; ideas that a lot of diplomats liked, but that they knew no one would ever be crazy enough to pull the trigger on.

And then Obama tried to pull the trigger on two out of three. What he wanted was for the Brotherhood to win so that it could make the War on Terror irrelevant.

As much as the advocates of smart and soft power insisted that Islamic terrorism had nothing to do with Islam, they knew better. They knew that Al Qaeda wanted to create Islamic states that would form into a Caliphate. Central to its thinking was that it would have to fight to create these states. But what if the Caliphate could be created without a war?

To make it happen, all America had to do was surrender the Middle East.

Read more

The Obama administration, with it’s cultural relativist world view, believes that BOTH Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda can be moderated by making a  transition to democracy with our help. There has been an Orwellian re-branding of the word terrorism in order to sell this idea to the public as well as a denial of the so called al Qaeda “franchise’s” ideological links to “core” al Qaeda. So when the al Qaeda militia we were partnering with (Feb. 17th Martyrs Brigade) to protect the embassy actually assisted al Qaeda members from Yemen and possibly Egypt to attack and kill our people in Benghazi, they had to cover that up or risk Obama losing the election. Hillary Clinton went to extraordinary measures to change the Benghazi talking points in order to protect her political future as well as Obama’s. As a bonus, she managed to insert the lie of the “offensive” video tape in order to advance the campaign to criminalize criticism of Islam.

Walid Phares: ” These forces were not on the map as a threat to US national security because of a political determination that they were on the right side of history, and they were perceived as in transition to integration.”

Clare Lopez: “The real issue — which is what the CIA, the State Department or anyone in the U.S. government has been doing backing regime change operations across the Middle East and North Africa region in the company of and for the benefit of Al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood jihadis — never gets addressed, much less explained by the ARB or anyone else.”

Related articles

Obama’s Years of Collaboration with Terror Supporters

obama_islam1

This is an excellent review of Patrick Poole’s important piece published last June,

BLIND TO TERROR: THE U.S. GOVERNMENT’S DISASTROUS MUSLIM OUTREACH EFFORTS AND THE IMPACT ON U.S. MIDDLE EAST POLICY

FrontPage, by Arnold Ahlert on June 5, 2013

As the Obama administration seeks to move beyond a welter of scandals, a new report by investigative journalist Patrick Poole reveals that the frenzy isn’t quite over yet. On top of the IRS’s targeting of conservatives, the DOJ’s seizure of reporters’ phone records and the coverup surrounding the murder of four Americans in Benghazi, the White House’s years-long collaboration with supporters of terrorism is finally getting the scrutiny it deserves. Poole’s comprehensive GLORIA Center article, “Blind to Terror: The U.S. Government’s Disastrous Muslim Outreach Efforts and the Impact on U.S. Policy,” details the Obama administration’s extensive relationship with accomplices to terrorism and how these associations have shaped administration policy — and endangered the American public in the process. As Middle East expert Barry Rubin commented on the report, “[Y]ou may think that you know this story — but it is far more extensive than has ever before been revealed.”

The primary question at the heart of Poole’s report is simple:

Why has the U.S. government called certain Islamic groups supporters of terror in federal court, and then turned around and called these same organizations ‘moderates’ and embraced them as outreach partners?

Many of the individuals under active federal investigation for terrorist activities were simultaneously meeting with government officials to help formulate U.S. policy during the last three administrations. Under the Obama administration, these same Islamist organizations and their leaders have influenced vital policy measures, including a purge of counter-terrorism training that makes it virtually impossible for law enforcement officials “to connect the dots.”

For example, Poole cites the failure of the FBI to carry out an investigation of Tamerlan Tsarnaev prior to the Boston Marathon bombings, despite Russian warnings. He attributes a portion of that failure to

a full scale campaign of political correctness waged inside the bureau and throughout the U.S. government under the Obama administration against any attempt to link jihadi terrorism with anything remotely connected to Islam of any variety.

This regime of “political correctness” (to put it charitably) is no doubt a function of the Obama administration’s choice of Muslim “outreach partners,” which is rife with individuals like Shaykh Kifah Mustapha. The National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) extended an invitation to Mustapha to tour its top-secret facility in September 2010, as part of the FBI’s civilian training program, despite the fact that he was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial. That trial represents the largest terrorist financing case in history. During the trial, an FBI agent testified that Mustapha undertook fundraising efforts for Hamas, glorified the terrorist group, and encouraged the slaughter of Jews. Furthermore, the visit also followed Mustapha’s previous removal as a chaplain for the Illinois State Police, due to media reports of his terrorist activities.

The same reckless discounting of radicalism and terror ties can be found at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), where Janet Napolitano appointed Mohamed Elibiary to her Homeland Security Advisory Council in October 2010, despite his honoring Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini at a 2004 conference, and his open support for Islamist godfather Sayyid Qutb. In 2010, Mohamed Majid, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), was sitting a few feet from Obama at the annual White House Iftar dinner in August, commemorating the Muslim celebration of Ramadan. ISNA was also cited as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case, along with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT).

The terrorist connections of Muslim aid programs and their financiers have also been scrupulously ignored. The Obama administration continues to fund the Sunni Ittehad Council to combat Pakistani extremism, despite rallies it held celebrating the assassination of a Pakistani governor opposed to the nation’s use of blasphemy laws to punish religious minorities.

Poole also cites the disturbing number of “leaders of American Islamic organizations that partner with the U.S. government” who transition into officials for Muslim Brotherhood fronts. Louay Safi is one such individual. Safi, a former top advisor at the Pentagon, appeared at a 2011 press conference in Istanbul as one the leaders of the Syrian National Council, which seeks to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad and is associated with the Brotherhood. That appearance occurred only weeks after Safi met with top White House officials. Safi was yet another unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land case. According to Poole, Safi’s status at the Pentagon became an issue following the Fort Hood atrocity, “when 13 members of Congress sent a letter to Defense Secretary Gates complaining that not only was Safi endorsing Muslim chaplains for the Defense Department on behalf of ISNA [a Muslim Brotherhood front], but also teaching classes on the ‘Theology of Islam’ to troops departing for Afghanistan at Fort Hood and Fort Bliss under a subcontract with the Naval Postgraduate School.”

Five other men made a similar transformation. Ghassan Hitto, a Dallas businessman, former director of CAIR’s Texas branch, and a recent board member of the Muslim American Society that the FBI has identified as a North American “arm” of the Muslim Brotherhood, has become “the provision premier of the Syrian resistance.”

Muthanna al-Hanooti is a former CAIR director and a former federal prisoner convicted for doing business with Iraq as part of a plea deal that stemmed from a far more serious indictment accusing him of attempting to influence Congress on behalf of Hussein’s Iraqi Intelligence Service (ISI). He is now regional director for the Detroit chapter of the Muslim Legal Fund of America.

Mahmoud Hussein is the current secretary general of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, recruited while studying at the University of Iowa. He was once president of a now defunct subsidiary of ISNA know as the Muslim Arab Youth Association (MAYA), which sponsored several conferences featuring terrorists affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Ishaq Farhan, a longtime board member of the Washington-based International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT) now heads the the Islamic Action Front, the Muslim Brotherhood’s political arm in Jordan.

Ahmed Yousef was the director of the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR), identified as early as 1993 as Hamas’s “political command” in America. According to the terror group’s charter, they consider themselves a “wing” of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine. Yousef, who fled the U.S. in 2005 on terror-realted charges, is currently a spokesman for Hamas in Gaza, and a senior political adviser to their terrorist leader, Ismail Haniyeh.

Poole notes that, because so many of the Islamic outreach partners affiliated with the government turned out to be fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood, the government is making “extraordinary efforts” to ignore that reality. This self-orchestrated denial has led to an incredible policy implemented by the Obama administration, one that was formulated as a result of the FBI’s continued relationship with CAIR, despite its aforementioned status as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land case.

It began with the purge of hundreds of documents and presentations from counterterrorism manuals, leading to the creation of the FBI’s “Touchstone Document.” That document finally codified the Obama administration’s increasingly despicable approach to terror. It articulates a new policy that ought to enrage every American, even as it will undoubtedly endanger us all (emphasis added):

Training must clearly distinguish between constitutionally protected statements and activities designed to achieve political, social, or other objectives, and violent extremism, which is characterized by the use, threatened use, or advocacy of use of force or violence (when directed at and likely to incite imminent lawless activity) in violation of federal law to further a movement’s social or political ideologies. This distinction includes recognition of the corresponding principle that mere association with organizations that demonstrate both legitimate (advocacy) and illicit (violent extremism) objectives should not automatically result in a determination that the associated individual is acting in furtherance of the organization’s illicit objective(s).

In other words, if a terrorist group performs any “advocacy” function, such as building a school or a day care center, the FBI cannot “jump to conclusions” about individuals associated with the group, even if it is also perpetrating mass murder. Thus, as Poole notes, the terror support of this administration’s Muslim outreach partners “is absolved with a rhetorical sleight-of-hand.”

The result? “This is why Mohamed Majid, who just a few years before was treated as a pariah by the Attorney General of the United States after federal prosecutors named his organization as a front for the Muslim Brotherhood and a supporter of terrorism in the largest terrorism financing trial in American history, can just a few short years later not only be rehabilitated, but can regularly be found–much as al-Qa’ida fundraiser Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi who preceded him–a frequent visitor to the White House,” writes Poole.

Poole then goes on to reveal a parade of “rehabilitated” terrorists and their organizations that have been, and will continue to be, welcomed into the country by the Obama administration. These include people like Hani Nour Eldin, a known member of the U.S.-designated terrorist group Egyptian al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya, who visited the White House in 2012 to demand the release of “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman. Rahman was convicted for his role in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Sudanese war criminal Nafie Ali Nafie, the architect of two genocides in that nation, also got the red carpet treatment, receiving an invitation to the State Department as part of a Sudanese delegation.

Poole further reveals that such monstrous accommodation begets an even more insidious downside. “No sooner had the White House’s new outreach policy been announced, when it became clear that one of the policy outcomes of this relationship was the administration’s enforcement of a blacklist of subject matter experts deemed ‘enemies’ by their Muslim partners,” he writes. Coupled with the “Islamophobic” purge of law enforcement training manuals, the Obama administration began fully embracing this Alice in Wonderland approach to terror, best described as one that allows enemies of the United States to help us decide who our enemies are — and who they aren’t.

Poole uses a quote by Andrew McCarthy, who prosecuted the Blind Sheikh, to encapsulate the insidiousness of this policy. “I marched into the courtroom every day for nine months and proved that there was an undeniable nexus between Islamic doctrine and terrorism committed by Muslims…And when I demonstrated the straight-line, undeniable logic of the evidence–that scripture informed the Blind Sheikh’s directives; that those directives informed his terrorist subordinates; and that those subordinates then committed atrocities–the government gave me the Justice Department’s highest award,” McCarthy writes. “Today, I’d be ostracized. No longer is the government content to be willfully blind. Today, it is defiantly, coercively, extortionately blind.”

It is far worse than that. When five members of Congress led by the retiring Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) attempted to ascertain the level of Islamic infiltration into the government of the United States, members of both political parties, along with the media, excoriated their efforts to protect the American public. Their ire was further stoked by the group’s inquiry into Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin’s family, despite the reality that her mother, brother and deceased father are/were members of the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliate organization, the Muslim Sisterhood. Ironically, given the parameters of the Touchstone Document, it would now likely be irrelevant if Huma Abedin herself belonged to either branch of the organization.

Yet as this extensive investigation by Poole reveals, Bachmann, et al., have not only been vindicated, they may have underestimated the problem. It remains to be seen if Congress, already up to its necks in administration scandals, will be willing to take this one on as well. As the atrocity in Boston indicates, American lives literally depend on it.

Arnold Ahlert is a former NY Post op-ed columnist currently contributing to JewishWorldReview.com, HumanEvents.com and CanadaFreePress.com. He may be reached at atahlert@comcast.net.

Also see:

CPAC AGAIN FAILS TO ADDRESS FOREIGN POLICY

soldiers_marching_APBreitbart, by JORDAN SCHACHTEL:

Of the 27 confirmed panels at the Conservative Political Action Conference’s (CPAC) annual policy conference, only 1 is vaguely dedicated to foreign policy. The panel titled, “What Should be America’s Place in the World in 2017…After Obama?” leaves us with more questions than answers. Al Qaeda is on the rise, Iran’s race towards nuclear capacity remains unchecked, The Muslim Brotherhood’s influence is rapidly expanding throughout the globe, America’s alliances are deteriorating day by day, and the military is dissolving down to Pre-WWII levels. Shouldn’t the conservatives of America at their most prominent forum at least have the opportunity to discuss and debate the best course of action for America’s future in foreign affairs?

Last year, partially due to CPAC’s failure to address the critical issues in foreign policy discourse, Breitbart hosted “The Uninvited” panel. The panel consisted of subject matters largely deemed “inappropriate” by the powers that be at CPAC. The panel was inspired by the late Andrew Breitbart and his fundamental philosophy that more voices is always better than less, and more voices leads to greater accountability and citizen engagement. The topics discussed during the “Uninvited” panel included crony capitalism, illegal immigration, global jihad and radical Islam, the persecution of Christians across the globe, and the gutting of the American military. Alarmingly, these issues among many others regarding foreign policy remain more important than ever.

It is not as if the President hasn’t had his fair share of Foreign Policy blunders under his watch. There is a plethora of material suggesting conservatives have plenty to discuss regarding the failures of the Obama Administration’s foreign policy.

Insurmountable evidence is suggesting Al Qaeda, once almost subdued following an aggressive campaign in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, has rapidly expanded its influence throughout the globe. Al Qaeda affiliates and supporters are attributed as being directly responsible for the 9/11/2012 attacks on Benghazi, Libya, that ended in the death of four Americans. Al Qaeda linked groups have developed strongholds in Iraq Syria, and Pakistan, along with much of North and East Africa.

Iran remains unchecked in its rapid ascent towards nuclear weaponization. Under President Obama’s watch, Iran’s centrifuges have expanded from an estimated 5,000 to 19,000. A Bipartisan initiative in the Senate meant to check the Iranian regime’s pursuit of nuclear weapons was met with the threat of a veto from President Obama in his recent State of the Union Address. Afterwards, support for the bill quietly died down.

Some argue President Obama’s public insistence upon supporting the overthrow of former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak devolved Egypt into a state of indefinite turmoil. With Mubarak gone, Obama proceeded to support Muslim Brotherhood-backed candidate Mohamed Morsi, whose overall incompetence lead to a military coup d’etat shortly thereafter. In the aftermath of Egypt’s military takeover, mobs of Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood supporters engaged in a campaign of violence and destruction towards Egypt’s Coptic Christians, burning their Churches and killing innocent civillians.

According to a recent Gallup poll, America’s relationship with its allies under the current administration has devolved to the lowest level thus far on record. According to the poll, only 41% of Americans believe other countries around the world have respect for President Obama.

The Pentagon revealed on Monday that it would shrink the size of the US Military to pre-WW2 levels. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said the Pentagon plans both a quantitative reduction in overall army size and a massive monetary deduction in defense spending. Hagel’s plan suggests an active Army of 450,000 troops, along with slashing defense expenditures in addition to the already $487 billion, 10 year defense cuts required under the sequester.

It is not difficult to highlight the many missteps, blunders and overall incompetence of the Obama Administration’s foreign policy. With the United States’ rapidly dissolving prowess throughout the world become more and more apparent, it remains unclear why CPAC continuously disallows Conservative leaders from offering their prescription for reversing America’s downward trajectory in world affairs.

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

The answer is here:

183770806 (2)

strategic-goal-for-the-North-American-operation-of-the-extremist-Muslim-Brotherhood-