Obama Eid Celebration Again Empowers Islamists Over Reformers

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

IPT NewsJuly 21, 2016

The White House held a celebration Thursday afternoon to honor Eid al Fitr, the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. While no guest list has been made public, the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) has learned that it includes a number of Islamist activists who have espoused views in direct contrast with American policy.

Among them were several officials from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and a former official who remains close to the organization. In contrast, Muslim Americans who believe CAIR and other Islamist groups are not representative of the community’s diverse viewpoints were not invited.

The White House declined to comment to the IPT or release a complete list of invitees.

The inclusion of so many CAIR officials shows that the United States government has wildly different views about the organization.

FBI policy since 2008 prohibits engagement with CAIR, which touts itself as “a grassroots civil rights and advocacy group” and the country’s “largest Muslim civil liberties organization.”

But the FBI cut off CAIR’s access after its agents uncovered CAIR’s darker history.Internal documents and eyewitness accounts prove that CAIR was born into a network of Muslim Brotherhood-created support groups in the United States. Each branch of that network, known as the “Palestine Committee,” shared a mission of boosting the Islamist movement in general and Hamas in particular.

Until it determines “whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and HAMAS, the FBI does not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner,” a senior official explained in writing in 2009. [Emphasis added]

Here’s what federal prosecutors privy to the same evidence wrote in 2007:

CAIR has tried to ignore or minimize these statements. But it has never acknowledged the connections to the Hamas support network or ever tried to claim that it has evolved since then and no longer pursues its original secret agenda. It has had only one executive director in its history, and he was listed in a roster of the network’s members (see No. 25, Nihad Awad).

Despite this wealth of evidence, Thursday’s Eid celebration shows that the message to CAIR is a little different at the Obama White House: Come on in!

At least four CAIR officials were invited. Among them, a man who called the 2008 war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza a “genocide” and who likens the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) to ISIS, and a man who accuses the FBI of setting up innocent Muslims and of cold-blooded murder.

In addition, Ahmed Bedier, a former CAIR official in Florida who continued to raise money for the organization as recently as 2014, posted links to videos from the event on Twitter Thursday afternoon.

Honoring a holiday celebrated by several million Americans is fine. But the Obama administration’s insistence on inviting – thereby empowering – radical Islamist voices like the CAIR officials included Thursday overlooks the work and conclusions of its own career agents and prosecutors.

Once again, the White House guest list omits any members of the fledgling Muslim Reform Movement. That movement, representing more diverse opinions and arguably a more representative face of American Muslims, published a declaration that should be embraced by people of all stripes. It is worth reading in its entirety, but its preamble says they are fighting for “a respectful, merciful and inclusive interpretation of Islam” and clearly rejects “interpretations of Islam that call for any violence, social injustice and politicized Islam.”

In addition to explaining what they reject, the reformists articulate what they stand for. “We are for secular governance, democracy and liberty. We are against political movements in the name of religion. We separate mosque and state. We are loyal to the nations in which we live.”

Someone needs to explain why that message can’t get a seat at the table.

“The saddest thing is not only the complete monopoly and dominance of American Islamist groups in the [White House] Eid celebration invitation,” Reform Movement member Zuhdi Jasser told the Investigative Project on Terrorism, “… but imagine how insulting it is that the [White House] also includes representatives of all the ‘petro-Islam’ and [Organization of Islamic Cooperation]’s ‘neo-caliphate’ tyrannies from Embassy Row. So the nations like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, Afghanistan, and Pakistan who imprison, torture, and assassinate Muslim reformers like us are honored and invited down the red carpet along with their choir of American Islamist lobbyists (as Asra Nomani calls them: the #HonorBrigade) and yet genuine, honest free-thinking American Muslim reformers are completely ignored and blackballed. This has been the SOP for the Obama administration for now over 7 years. Their ‘Muslim’ related policies are dominated by the Islamist mafia at home and abroad. The Obama administration and their friends on the Left claim to be about diversity yet when it comes to diversity it’s all about racial and ethnic diversity and no ideological diversity within the House of Islam.”

The ideology two CAIR officials brought to the White House is inherently hostile toward U.S. policy.

In addition to comparing the IDF to ISIS, CAIR Los Angeles Executive Director Hussam Ayloush repeatedly accused Israel of committing genocide and a holocaust against Palestinians in Gaza. These accusations seem to redefine what constitutes a genocide or holocaust, since Gaza’s population is increasing steadily.

Ayloush also reacts similarly to most CAIR officials when asked about Hamas, the beneficiary of support from the American “Palestine Committee” to which CAIR was born. He refuses to acknowledge Hamas as a terrorist organization and quickly grows angrily defensive.

Hasan Shibly, Ayloush’s Florida counterpart, returns to the White House for at least the second time since December, when he was included in a discussion on religious discrimination. Like Bedier, he posted video from the event on his Facebook page Thursday afternoon, also showing Ayloush with him.

In the video, Shibly says the White House event triggered debate, since U.S. military strikes in Syria killed civilians. Ayloush, Shibly said, planned to deliver a letter “about the atrocities in Syria” to Obama. “Right now U.S. drone strikes – they’re the biggest creators of terrorism in the Middle East,” Shibly said.

That, presumably, means Shibly thinks drone strikes create more terrorism than ISIS.

Shibly said he and his colleagues also planned to criticize “consistent abuse by the FBI” and Customs and Border Protection “against the American Muslim community,” saying Muslim activists are harassed and accusing the FBI of “brainwash[ing] mentally disturbed youth to plan terrorist plots so they can justify the continued surveillance of the community.”

The White House embrace comes despite the fact that Shibly is helping a family sue the FBI, for allegedly shooting a Muslim without cause. Agents shot and killed Ibragim Todashev, a “skilled mixed-martial arts fighter,” after hours of questioning in 2013 tied to an unsolved triple murder. Todashev also was a friend of Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev. After reportedly acknowledging some involvement in the murder case, agents say Todashev attacked.

CAIR asked for independent investigations. But after two reviews found no wrongdoing, Shibly refused to accept the outcome. He also accused FBI agents of shooting a Detroit imam in 2010 after he had been “tied and bound.” Separate independent investigations and an actual video of the shooting showed this was not remotely true, but Shibly repeated the smear anyway.

He also defended a terror suspect who was arrested after loading what he thought was a bomb into his car. Sami Osmakac repeatedly expressed interest in violent jihad and dreamed of carrying out a “second 9/11.”

“I want to do something,” he said. “Something terrifying.” Before his arrest, he made a martyrdom video in which he called his attack “payback for Sheikh Osama Bin Laden.”

Still, Shibly cast Osmakac as a man who posed no threat to the public and blamed the FBI for setting him up.

He gets the White House invitation – again, at least his second – but Jasser and his fellow reformists are shut out. The imprimatur that accompanies an audience with the president of the United States can be used for tremendous good. It can raise new voices to prominence, and it can stimulate much-needed debate. The Reform Movement declaration, for example, specifically emphasizes the rights of women to equal treatment.

Instead, President Obama and his staffers continue to tip the scales to favor the most monolithic, pro-Islamist voices and protect the monopoly they enjoy on public debate.

It is beyond shameful.

Also see:

Islam at war with a delusional, suicidal West

Obama_CairoWND, by Matt Barber, July 16, 2016:

“Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.”

– Barack Hussein Obama

Isn’t it about time we crusade for self-defense?

I’ll say it again. Political correctness is a barrier to truth and a pathway to tyranny.

It’s also deadly.

As I beheld across my social media feeds last night, the horrific, blood-bathed images of 84-plus slaughtered innocents on the streets of Nice, France (at the hands of yet another Muslim named Mohamed), I was reminded of a quote by the great Winston Churchill: “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last.”

I was also reminded of a statement by Hillary Clinton: “Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

At best, this woman is an appeaser. Apart from Barack Obama, she has proven chief chumming chump to the crocs of the caliphate. This level of willful self-delusion requires suspension of disbelief stimulated by strong medicine indeed. That medicine is multiculturalism – the global “progressive” left’s pet project, save cultural Marxism, in a disastrously failed globalist public policy.

While Hillary is an appeaser, an apologist for Islam (or “dhimmi”), President Obama, I fear, is something far worse.

Tears welled in my eyes as I viewed the now viral image of a child sprawled lifeless on the streets of Nice, covered by a body blanket and flanked by her doll. As I stared at this image, a ghastly metaphor for modern multiculturalism, an ember of rage burst aflame within me. I reflected upon how Obama once described the Muslim call to prayer as, “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”

And I felt disgust for the man.

That call to prayer asserts, among other things:

Allah is Supreme!
Allah is Supreme!
Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme!
I witness that there is no god but Allah
I witness that there is no god but Allah
I witness that Muhammad is his prophet

Standing before the United Nations General Assembly in 2012, Obama uttered these chilling words: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

Indeed. The dead of Nice have no future at all.

Will we?

We know where Barack Obama’s sympathies, if not his loyalties, lie. But what of his would-be successor, Hillary Clinton?

The answer requires little speculation. Ms. Clinton has indicated her intention to resettle at least one million Muslim refugees in the U.S during her first term alone.

She plans to house the hounds in the hen house.

And hounds many will be.

Consider, for instance, that according to a 2015 Center for Security Policy poll, 51 percent of American Muslims desire that Islamic Shariah law be made the law of the land. Moreover, nearly 30 percent say that violence is appropriate against Americans who “insult” Islam or its “prophet” Muhammad.

Both Islam and the Quran, among many other such atrocities, explicitly require worldwide caliphate (global domination and the violent imposition of Islamic Shariah law). It treats women as chattel, stones them to death if they are raped (or not properly attired) and, in even the most “civilized” Islamic nations such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, executes practitioners of homosexuality as a matter of law.

These facts are not open for serious debate and are available for all to read, hear, see and, tragically, experience. Islam, therefore, is inherently at odds with freedom, democracy and the United States Constitution. While devout followers of Muhammad readily admit this reality, the suicidal left yet remains hellbent, head in the sand, on “tolerating” itself, and the rest of us, to death.

Writing last year in Investor’s Business Daily, investigative journalist Paul Sperry noted that “60 percent of Muslim-Americans under 30 … told Pew Research they’re more loyal to Islam than America.”

A treasonous heart leads to treasonous acts.

And that’s just the tip of the scimitar. Consider these terrifying numbers:

  • 83 percent of Palestinian Muslims, 62 percent of Jordanians and 61 percent of Egyptians approve of jihadist attacks on Americans. World Public Opinion Poll (2009).
  • 1.5 Million British Muslims support the Islamic State, about half their total population. ICM (Mirror) Poll 2015.
  • Two-thirds of Palestinians support the stabbing of Israeli civilians. Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (2015).
  • 45 percent of British Muslims agree that clerics preaching violence against the West represent “mainstream Islam.” BBC Radio (2015).
  • 38 percent of Muslim-Americans say Islamic State (ISIS) beliefs are Islamic or correct. The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015).
  • One-third of British Muslim students support killing for Islam. Center for Social Cohesion (Wikileaks cable).
  • 78 percent of British Muslims support punishing the publishers of Muhammad cartoons. NOP Research.
  • 80 percent of young Dutch Muslims see nothing wrong with holy war against non-believers. Most verbalized support for pro-Islamic State fighters. Motivaction Survey (2014).
  • 68 percent of British Muslims support the arrest and prosecution of anyone who insults Islam. NOP Research.
  • 81 percent of Muslim respondents support the Islamic State (ISIS). Al-Jazeera poll (2015).

Muhammad taught, and the Quran stresses, that a central tenet of Islam is to convert, enslave or kill the infidel. An infidel is anyone who is not Muslim or, depending on who’s doing the killing, belongs to a different sect of Islam. Those who fall into that elusive, perpetually mute category tagged “moderate Muslim” are also infidels or “idolaters.” They’re bad Muslims and, so, according to the Quran, not Muslims at all. “When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them,” commands Surah 9:5. “Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them.” Faithful Muslims, true followers of Muhammad, “slay the idolaters wherever [they] find them.”

Brigitte Gabriel is a world-renown national security expert. Her concentration is on the – ahem – explosive rise in Islamic terrorism. She notes that there are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. Of them, intelligence agencies estimate that 15-25 percent are orthodox Muslims, meaning they actually follow the teachings of the Quran.

“That leaves 75 percent of [Muslims being] peaceful people,” observes Gabriel. “But when you look at 15-25 percent of the world’s Muslim population, you’re looking at 180 million to 300 million people dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization. That is as big as the United States,” she concludes.

Hillary Clinton’s delusional, PC-poisoned and bat-guano-crazy words here bear repeating: “Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

Some are and some don’t.

Yet hundreds of millions do.

The best thing Donald Trump has going for him is that he’s not Hillary Clinton.

***

Islam, Revolution, and Black Lives Matter

CiJnews

CiJnews

Crisis Magazine, by William Kirkpatrick, July 14, 2016: (h/t Christine Williams at Jihad Watch)

In a speech delivered to the Annual MAS-ICNA (Muslim American Society and Islamic Circle of North America) Convention in December 2015, Nihad Awad, the Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), urged Muslim Americans to take up the cause of Black Lives Matter. “Black Lives Matter is our matter,” he said; “Black Lives Matter is our campaign.”

At the same conference, Khalilah Sabra, another activist, told the Muslim audience, “Basically you are the new black people of America… We are the “community that staged a revolution across the world. If we could do that, why can’t we have that revolution in America?” “That revolution” is apparently a reference to the “Arab Spring” revolutions which were inspired by the Muslim Brotherhood and which brought death and destruction to wide swaths of the Middle East and North Africa.

Do CAIR and other activist groups merely want to support Black Lives Matter, or do they hope to recruit blacks to their own cause? In 2014, ISIS used the protests and clashes in Ferguson, Missouri as an opportunity to attempt to recruit blacks to radical Islam. But ISIS is a known terrorist organization while CAIR, despite its shady history, is considered by many to be a moderate, mainstream Muslim organization. Thus, if it wanted to convert blacks, it would presumably want to convert them to a moderate version of Islam.

Or would it? According to Paul Sperry and David Gaubatz, the authors of Muslim Mafia, the supposedly moderate CAIR acts like an underworld cospiracy. In fact, it (along with numerous other prominent Muslim groups) was named by a U.S. court as an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorist funding case. In addition, CAIR has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates. Moreover, CAIR is a direct outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is also listed as a terrorist group by the UAE, as well as by Egypt and Saudi Arabia. That’s the same Muslim Brotherhood that fomented the “Arab Spring” revolutions, the likes of which Khalilah Sabra wants to bring to America.

The move to bring black Americans into the Islamic fold actually predates CAIR and ISIS by quite a few generations. Black Muslim organizations such as Louis Farrakhan’s The Nation of Islam have been recruiting blacks to their unorthodox brand of Islam for decades. The vast majority of blacks have resisted the temptation to join, perhaps because of NOI’s overt racism, its anti-Semitism, and its criticism of Christianity. In any event, it seems that the Black Muslim movement is being gradually displaced by traditional Sunni Islam. That’s because Sunni Islam has a much better claim to legitimacy—it being a worldwide religion that traces its roots back not to a 1930s Detroit preacher named Wallace Fard Muhammad, but to a seventh century prophet named Muhammad.

Will Islam catch on with black Americans? A great many blacks in America have a strong commitment to Christianity, which serves to act as a buffer against conversion to Islam. Still, it’s likely that Islam will make more inroads into the black community than it has in the past. For one thing, traditional Islam doesn’t have the “kook” factor which keeps most blacks at a distance from The Nation of Islam. The NOI belief system includes giant space ships, an evil scientist who created a race of “white devils,” and, most recently, an embrace of Dianetics.

By contrast, traditional Islam looks much more like … well, like a traditional religion. Indeed, when approaching Christians, Islamic apologists like to play up the similarities between the two religions. Each year around Christmastime, Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR’s Public Relations Director, sends out a Christmas letter with the message, “We have more in common than you think.”

One of the common elements is Jesus, who is honored as a great prophet in Islam. The self-proclaimed leader of the Black Lives Matter protest in Dallas on July 7, 2016 once wrote of feeling called to follow Jesus into Islam. In November 2015, the Reverend Jeff Hood, a white leftist pastor, wrote:

I have no question that Jesus is so intimately incarnated with and connected to our Muslim friends that he has become one. If we want to walk with Jesus in this moment of extreme oppression and marginalization, we will too.

Islam is an equal-opportunity recruiter. It is open to white leftists and black boxers alike. But Islamic proselytizers may see the present moment as an opportune time to concentrate on blacks. Why is that? Perhaps mainly because our educational system has managed to convince both black and white students that America is a racist society that was built on the back of slavery. Almost all students have been indoctrinated in the narrative that America has a shameful history and heritage. For blacks, however, this version of American history is more plausible because their ancestors actually did suffer from the ravages of slavery and the humiliation of Jim Crow laws. Nevertheless, during the Civil Rights era and afterwards, both blacks and whites worked hard to heal racial divisions. Racism—both black and white—seemed to be dying a natural death until leftists, with the aid of the media and the Obama administration, managed to resuscitate it. Despite the two-time election of a black president and the appointment or election of black Attorney Generals, black Secretaries of State, black Supreme Court justices, a black chief of Homeland Security, black mayors, and black police chiefs, a number of blacks seem convinced that white racism is the number one factor that is keeping them down.

Enter CAIR and other Muslim “civil rights” groups that are only too happy to reinforce this narrative. They profess to understand the plight of American blacks because they claim to be victims of a similar oppression—victims of colonialism, racism, and Islamophobia. Part of their pitch is that there is no discrimination in Islam. That might seem a hard sell if you’re familiar with the history of the Arab slave trade or with Islam’s own version of Jim Crow, the dhimmi system. The trouble is, those items have been dropped down the memory hole. The same teachers and textbooks that excoriate the Christian West tend to present Islam as though it were the font of all science and learning.

It might be hoped that blacks who convert will choose some milder form of Islam—something like the Sufi version practiced by Muhammad Ali after he left The Nation of Islam. Unfortunately, that’s not likely because CAIR, ISNA, and similar Islamist groups are practically the only game in town. They have successfully managed to present themselves as the official face of Islam in America, and ISNA, along with the Muslim Brotherhood-linked North American Islamic Trust, controls a majority of the major mosques.

In backing Black Lives Matter, CAIR and company run the risk that their own radicalism will be revealed. Apparently, they don’t consider that to be much of a risk. They know that the court eunuchs in the media will do their best to mainstream Black Lives Matter as a peaceful movement, just as the media has accepted the premise that CAIR itself is a mainstream, moderate organization.

CAIR can also count on President Obama to take the side of Black Lives Matter. Recently, he went so far as to compare it to the Abolitionist Movement against slavery. CAIR is no doubt confident that Obama has its back too. After all, the president made it clear from the start of his administration that he supported the Muslim Brotherhood—the “Mothership” (to borrow an NOI term) out of which CAIR sprang.

At the MSA-ICNA Convention, CAIR and associates felt safe to reveal their revolutionary side. They understand that Obama has a penchant for revolutionary causes—provided that they are leftist (the Castro brothers in Cuba) or Islamist (the “Arab Spring” revolutions) in nature. Before his first election, Obama promised a fundamental transformation of American society. CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood are also interested in a fundamental transformation. Indeed, the chief theorists of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb, were heavily influenced by Lenin and by communist revolutionary thought. So was Maulana Maududi, the founder of Jamaat-e-Islami, the Asian equivalent of the Muslim Brotherhood. “Islam,” wrote Maududi, “is a revolutionary ideology and programme which seeks to alter the social order of the whole world and rebuild it in conformity with its own tenets and ideals.” He added, “‘Muslim’ is the title of that International Revolutionary Party organized by Islam to carry into effect its revolutionary program.”

That statement has to rank fairly high on the fundamental-transformation scale, and it bears a striking resemblance to the tear-it-down-to-build-it-up leftist school of thought to which Obama belongs. Whether or not the fundamental transformation that Obama desires is the same as that sought by Islamists, he does seem anxious to effect one before his term in office runs out.

The emerging confluence of interests between radical Muslim groups, radical black groups, and a leftist president bent on a radical transformation of America should give us more than pause; it should alarm us. Does Obama intend to speed up the leftward movement of American society during his remaining months in office? Does he hope to accelerate the Islamization of America through a coalition of radical black, leftist, and Islamist groups? Or does he even care what the change is, as long as it’s revolutionary in nature?

Most Americans tend to assume that we are still operating under the same rules that have governed our society since its founding. They have not come to terms with the possibility that some of our leaders are operating under a completely different set of rules—what leftist activist Saul Alinsky called “rules for radicals.”

William Kilpatrick taught for many years at Boston College. He is the author of several books about cultural and religious issues, includingPsychological Seduction; Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right From Wrong; and Christianity, Islam and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West and the forthcoming The Politically Incorrect Guide to Jihad. His articles have appeared in numerous publications, including Catholic World Report, National Catholic Register, Aleteia, Saint Austin Review, Investor’s Business Daily, and First Things. His work is supported in part by the Shillman Foundation. For more on his work and writings, visit his website, turningpointproject.com

Also see:

Obama and the most successful national subversion in world history

obama-sinisterFamily Security Matters, by Lawrence Sellin, July 11, 2016:

America is coming apart – not just the United States, the sovereign nation, but our Constitution, our culture, our traditions, all of what “America” has come to mean.

It is not by accident.

What we are witnessing is the product of eight years of Barack Obama and his divisive rhetoric and destructive policies.

Obama’s “transformation” is a euphemism for the crippling and humbling of a great nation he considers racist, oppressive, venal and dysfunctional.

He warned us.

“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” – Barack Obama, October 30, 2008.

But Michelle Obama said it best.

“We are going to have to change our conversation; we’re going to have to change our traditions, our history; we’re going to have to move into a different place as a nation.” – Michelle Obama, May 14, 2008.

And that different place as a nation is fragmentation and collapse.

It is not a conspiracy.

There is, in fact, a deliberate, coordinated and ongoing effort to subvert the United States as a capitalist, Judeo-Christian based republic and replace it with alien political ideologies and cultures incompatible to personal liberty.

None of what is happening is “home-grown.”

There is an alliance between the global political left and radical Islam, two totalitarian philosophies that cannot dominate the world without first destroying capitalist, Judeo-Christian-based democracy, the United States being both the foremost proponent and primary target.

Just as Islamists attempt to impose their religion on the world in a totalitarian fashion requiring unwavering obedience, so do radical leftists strive to create an omnipotent socialist state that will control every aspect of daily life and will enforce a universal brand of “social justice” on all mankind.

I will not mince words.

The Democrat Party now represents, at least philosophically if not operationally, the American subsidiary of that alliance.

The Republican Party is dominated by globalists, obsessed with the acquisition of personal power and profit, and uninterested and willingly impotent in defending the rights, liberties and well-being of American citizens. The GOP leadership has solidified its choice to no longer represent what had been its constituency, but to adopt the identity of junior partners in the ruling class.

To summarize, the crises we are currently experiencing are the direct consequence of the policies pursued by Barack Obama, a coffeehouse communist and Islamic groupie, who leads a lawless cabal of fellow-travelers, financed by domestic anti-American and foreign sources, supported by professional agitators, facilitated by a supine Republican political opposition and cheered-on by a predominately left-wing media.

Societal division and social unrest are tactics used to destabilize and demoralize, to further fundamentally transform the country, which has already been undermined economically, educationally and culturally from within.

It has always been the dilemma of social revolutionaries, whether communist or Islamic, that as long as individuals embraced liberty and had the belief that his or her Divine spark of reason could solve the problems facing society, then that society would never reach the state of hopelessness and alienation recognized as the necessary prerequisite for totalitarianism.

Political correctness is part of that effort. Its aim is to narrow the range of thought in order to make independent thinking literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express those thoughts. It is accomplished through the systematic destruction of words and phrases as “microaggressions” or simply making statements that are patently untrue.

For example, despite exhaustive efforts by the Mainstream Media to paint Black Lives Matter (BLM) as a movement dedicated to “racial equality” or “social justice” and engaging in “peaceful protests;” it is, in reality, a violent, racist, and dangerous domestic terror group funded by rich white men (links to Ben and Jerry’s Foundation and George Soros) devoted to destabilizing American socio-cultural infrastructure, legitimized by Obama with a presidential invitation to the White House, and endorsed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim Brotherhood front group and the unindicted co-conspirator in the prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation for providing support to the terrorist group Hamas.

That is a pattern of connected dots, which our hopelessly corrupt political-media establishment, as acts of self-preservation and complicity-avoidance, tries tirelessly to disconnect.

Most of the social chaos and extremism we are currently witnessing in our country is the product of a well-funded and well-organized anti-American, predominately foreign, radical Islamo-leftist agenda – and an administration that enables rather than opposes the aims of our enemies.

It is time for patriots to take America back.

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonel Sellin is the author of “Restoring the Republic: Arguments for a Second American Revolution “. He receives email at lawrence.sellin@gmail.com.

***

Here is a relevant excerpt from The roots of Black Lives Matter unveiled by Jim Simpson:

Intellectual genealogy of Black Lives Matter

“We must be ready to employ trickery, deceit, law-breaking, withholding and concealing truth… We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us.” – Vladimir Lenin

That quote from the Soviet Union’s first leader captures the entire essence of the Left’s strategy. No matter what the issue, no matter what the facts, the Left advances a relentless, hate-filled narrative that America is irredeemably evil and must be destroyed as soon as possible. The BLM movement is only the latest but perhaps most dangerous variant on this divisive theme.

Communists use language and psychology as weapons. Their constant vilification is a form of psychological terror. It puts America and Americans on trial. The verdict is always guilty. Facts don’t matter because the Left does not want to resolve the problems they complain about. They use those problems to agitate and provoke, hoping conflict becomes unavoidable – thereby creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Their hatred is tactical.

Obama’s favorite Harvard professor Derrick Bell devised Critical Race Theory, which exemplifies Lenin’s strategy as applied to race. According to Discover the Networks:

“Critical race theory contends that America is permanently racist to its core, and that consequently the nation’s legal structures are, by definition, racist and invalid … members of ‘oppressed’ racial groups are entitled – in fact obligated – to determine for themselves which laws and traditions have merit and are worth observing…”

Bell’s theory is in turn an innovation of Critical Theory – developed by philosophers of the communist Frankfurt School. The school was founded in Frankfurt, Germany in 1923. Its Jewish communist scholars fled Hitler’s Germany in the 1930s, relocating to Columbia Teachers College in New York. Critical Theory – which discredits all aspects of Western society – rapidly infected the minds of newly-minted college professors, who then spread its poison throughout the university system. We know it today as political correctness.

White privilege

The “racist” narrative was turbocharged with the concept of “White Privilege,” the notion that whites – the dominant group in capitalist America – are irretrievably racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, fill-in-the-blank-ophobic, imperialistic oppressors who exploit everyone. Whites are the only true evil in the world and should be exterminated.

The “White Skin Privilege” idea was created in 1967 by Noel Ignatiev, an acolyte of Bell and professor at Harvard’s W.E.B. Du Bois Institute (Du Bois was a Communist black leader who helped found the NAACP). Ignatiev was a member of CPUSA’s most radical wing, the Maoist/Stalinist Provisional Organizing Committee to Reconstitute the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party (POC). POC was the intellectual forerunner to FRSO.

Writing under the alias Noel Ignatin, Ignatiev co-authored an SDS pamphlet with fellow radical Ted Allen, titled “White Blindspot.” In 1992 he co-founded “Race Traitor: Journal of the New Abolitionism.” Its first issue coined the slogan, “Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.” Its stated objective was to “abolish the white race.” More specifically, the New Abolitionist newsletter stated:

“The way to abolish the white race is to challenge, disrupt and eventually overturn the institutions and behavior patterns that reproduce the privileges of whiteness, including the schools, job and housing markets, and the criminal justice system. The abolitionists do not limit themselves to socially acceptable means of protest, but reject in advance no means of attaining their goal (emphasis added).”

But do not be confused; “White” does not mean white. “White” in radical construction means anyone of any race, creed, nationality, color, sex, or sexual preference who embraces capitalism, free markets, limited government and American traditional culture and values. By definition, these beliefs are irredeemably evil and anyone who aligns with them is “white” in spirit and thus equally guilty of “white crimes.” Ignatiev still teaches, now at the Massachusetts College of Art.

The Black Lives Matter movement carries this narrative to unprecedented heights, claiming that only whites can be racists. And while justifying violence to achieve “social justice,” the movement’s goal is to overthrow our society to replace it with a Marxist one. Many members of the black community would be shocked to learn that the intellectual godfathers of this movement are mostly white Communists, “queers” and leftist Democrats, intent on making blacks into cannon fodder for the revolution.

Also see:

***

Gilbert: Inside Obama’s Communist/Islamic Dreams

Truth Revolt, July 11, 2016:

Whatever you may think of InfoWars’ Alex Jones, check out his recent interview with filmmaker Joel Gilbert on President Obama’s true heritage and why he seems to hate America so much.

Gilbert is the director and writer of the controversial political documentaries There’s No Place Like Utopia (2014) and Dreams from My Real Father (2012), as well as others. He speaks often in the media about Obama’s Marxist agenda.

In this interview, Jones picks Gilbert’s mind about “the end times of the Republic,” where Obama wants to take us, and why. Check it out above. The interview begins at 3:40.

Obama Admin Ignored Evidence of Dallas Shooter’s Membership in New Black Panthers

But Obama said the cop killer’s motive was “hard to untangle”…

Truth Revolt, July 11, 2016:

In an interview with Judge Jeanine Pirro on Fox News, election lawyer J. Christian Adams discusses his article on PJ Media titled “Obama Justice Department Laughed Off Armed New Black Panther Threat,” regarding the Dallas cop killer Micah Johnson and his involvement in the radical New Black Panther organization.

Here is Adams summing up the info in his must-read piece:

Micah Johnson, the shooter in Dallas who ambushed Dallas police officers, was a member of the New Black Panther Party. He was active in the Houston Chapter of the NBPP. The Houston New Black Panthers were caught on video marching with semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, chanting “off the pig” and “oink oink bang bang.” One of the individuals in that march bears a striking resemblance to Dallas shooter Johnson.

The New Black Panthers are a rabid anti-white and anti-Semitic group. They were defendants in a voter intimidation case brought in 2009 by the United States Department of Justice for stalking a polling place with a weapon in the 2008 election. After the inauguration, and after DOJ lawyers obtained a default against them in court, the Obama Justice Department dismissed the case.

During that case, Justice Department lawyers discovered evidence that the New Black Panthers had produced a video called “Training Day” which urges members to ambush and kill police officers using AK-47s. This evidence was brought to the attention of top Justice Department officials, including then-Assistant Attorney General (and now Labor Secretary and possible Vice Presidential nominee) Tom Perez. It was brought to the attention of multiple Justice Department officials. Not a single one took the video seriously, instead laughing it off as the work of a couple of cranks and kooks.

Other photos were found in which Black Panthers pose with firearms — illegally because they are convicted felons. Nobody did anything about those photos either. Nobody was ever arrested for breaking federal law. The lawyers working the voter intimidation case took the video threats to kill very, very seriously and urged Obama administration officials to do the same. They didn’t. Now we learn what happens when black radicals intent on killing white cops are given signals that their behavior will not be checked – either legally or rhetorically.

Watch the video above and check out Breitbart here for further info on Johnson’s New Black Panther involvement.

***

Also  see:

Is this the Dallas cop killer at a New Black Panthers march?

Is this the Dallas cop killer at a New Black Panthers march?

***

Why Our Leaders Won’t Name the Enemy

olThe truth would destroy them.

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, June 28, 2016:

After the Orlando attack, Obama ranted that it did not matter what we called Islamic terrorism. “What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIS less committed to trying to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction.”

The “Islamic terrorists by any other name would smell as sweet” argument is the last resort of the losing side. It dismisses the whole issue as a matter of semantics with no bearing on the real world.

And that’s a neat rhetorical trick for the political side that relentlessly refuses to acknowledge reality.

One of the more shocking moments in Jeffrey Goldberg’s extended Atlantic write-up of Obama’s foreign policy came with his conversation with the Prime Minister of Australia. Obama, who has refused to recognize any connection between Islamic theology and violence, and made the hijab into a civil rights issue, told the Australian leader how he had seen Indonesia turn to “fundamentalist” Islam and noted, unfavorably, the large numbers of women now wearing hijabs as a sign of that fundamentalism.

Obama blamed the Saudis for pushing Wahhabism through imams and madrassas into Indonesia.

It wasn’t an original critique, but also not one that you hear much in Obama’s circles. When Obama reportedly tells world leaders that there will be “no comprehensive solution to Islamist terrorism until Islam reconciles itself to modernity” and undergoes reforms the way that Christianity did, it’s like suddenly having Khrushchev explain why Communism can’t work and will end up falling apart.

It’s shocking and revealing.

In moments like these we see that Obama knows that he’s lying. And Obama makes the awkward semantics argument because he knows that the existence of Islamic terrorism can’t be debated. When you are reduced to arguing that names don’t matter, it’s because you know that the name is right.

Plenty of leftists lie to themselves about Islamic terrorism. Obama is not lying to himself. He’s lying to us. He is willing to say things about Islamic terror to foreign leaders that he refuses to say to Americans.

He can tell them that Islamic terrorism is real and that the only way to stop it is to reform Islam.

And here is where we come back to his question of why naming Islamic terrorism matters. It’s a question that Obama has already answered. You can’t solve a problem until you define it. It may not matter what you call a rose, as long as you know that it’s a plant. If you don’t know that a rose is a flowering plant that grows out of the ground, then you’ll never figure out how to plant one. If you don’t know that Islamic terrorism is a theological implementation of its core religious identity, you won’t even know what it is you are supposed to be fighting. And you won’t win except through brute force.

We have never defined the problem of Islamic terrorism because that would just be too dangerous.

Why is Obama willing to talk about Saudi support for terrorism to the Prime Minister of Australia, but not to Americans? Why does he only suggest reforming Islam to foreign leaders in private?

The official story is that it would “empower” Islamic terrorists, but that’s a nonsensical claim. ISIS doesn’t derive its legitimacy from whether we call it ISIS, ISIL or Daesh. Nor are Muslims going to determine the theological legitimacy of a Jihadist group based on whether we refer to it as Islamic.

Telling the truth would no doubt “offend” Muslims. And the threat of offending Muslims continues to occupy far more branches of our government than fighting Muslim terrorism.

But Obama isn’t really afraid of offending Muslims. If he were, he wouldn’t have provided this little peek into his private meetings at all. Obama isn’t afraid of Muslims, terrorists or otherwise, he’s afraid of Americans.

Tell the truth and Americans might suddenly get the naughty idea that instead of waiting for Islam to “reform”, they ought to just deal with the problem at its source with a travel ban. They might decide that extra scrutiny for mosques really is warranted and that airport profiling would save everyone grief.

And, worst of all, they might realize that they have no reason to feel guilty about our foreign policy. If Islamic terrorism exists and is caused by Islam, then America isn’t and was never the problem.

That kind of thinking frightens Obama and the left far more than a hundred Orlando terror attacks.

Name the enemy and Americans might suddenly start feeling good about themselves. That outraged confidence which we associate with Pearl Harbor, but that made a brief return after September 11, might come back to stay. Americans would embrace patriotism and pride without doubt or guilt.

That is why Islamic terrorism can’t and won’t be named.

Whatever dislike Obama may harbor for the Islamization of Indonesia, he appears to be far less concerned by it than by the Americanization of America. He may indeed recognize Islamic terrorism to be a threat of some degree, but he views American patriotism as a much bigger threat.

He can give enlightened Atlantic readers a small peek behind the scenes to show them that he recognizes the obvious problem, but he isn’t about to extend that confidence nationwide.

And it’s not just Obama.

The real reason that our leaders won’t name the enemy is that they don’t like us and they don’t trust us. Running through their heads are nightmare scenarios like Brexit and Trump. They see their job as shepherding us away from our “worst impulses” toward a proper role within the global community.

They are quite capable of recognizing Islamic terrorism for what it is. They may not be terribly bright, but people in their positions have more than enough access to information for the conclusions to be inescapable. But they are determined not to allow Islamic terrorism to disrupt their larger plans for us.

It isn’t another 9/11 or 7/7 that worries them, but a resurgence of nationalism in response to it. That is why they will lie, mislead and even criminalize any dissent. Their response to every Islamic terrorist attack is to make us feel responsible, ashamed and helpless by transforming Muslims into the victims.

For these same reasons they will push mass Muslim migration no matter what the terror risks are. They will champion the hijab, even though they know it harms Muslim women. Why? Because these policies undermine our values and transform our countries. And that is their overriding agenda above all else.

That is what we are up against.

They know that they are lying about Islamic terrorism. It’s why Obama dismisses the subject as mere semantics. But it’s only one of many things that they are lying to us about. Obama lies to us about Islamic terrorism for the same reason that he lies to us about being able to keep your doctor.

He knows the truth, but the truth would interfere with the left’s larger plans to transform America.

Willful Blindness: Senate Hearing on Efforts To Deemphasize Radical Islam in Combating Terrorism

TedCruzSenateJudiciaryCommitteeHearsjXSszyR1VLUl

SEE MORE UPDATES

UPDATE 1:50PM. Live-stream of the hearing is available on CSPAN-3. Follow our #WillfulBlindness twitter list for the most comprehensive, minute-by-minute coverage, featuring our CounterJihad team.

By CounterJihad, June 28, 2016:

Today at 2:30 Eastern, Senator Ted Cruz will lead Congressional hearings into the damage caused to national security by the Obama administration’s attempts to downplay the threat from radical Islam. The hearing seeks to get to the bottom of the Obama Administration’s attempt to cover up the threat posed by radical Islam to U.S. national security. President Obama and other government officials have effectively diverted attention away from the global jihadist movement and covered up key linkages in various terrorist attacks.

We have seen this strategy throughout Obama’s presidency: from labeling terrorist attacks like the Fort Hood shooting as workplace violence (finally called incident terrorist attack in 2015), to the Benghazi incident when former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and others initially blamed the attack on an internet video, to the recent Orlando shooting where President Obama is shifting attention away from ISIS to gun control.

There is also a deliberate attempt to characterize individuals as “lone-wolf” terrorists to disconnect the individual from a broader terror network seeking to undermine U.S. security. Further attempts to disguise the real threat is evident in President Obama’s national security strategy “Countering Violent Extremism” (CVE) which National Review columnist Andrew C. McCarthy describes as an effort that “…forbids the conclusion that radical Islamic ideology has any causative effect on terrorist plotting.” Therefore, any terroristic activity executed in the name of Islam essentially has nothing to do with Islam. This handicaps our military, FBI, DHS and other federal authorities from going after individuals and groups who espouse radical Islamic ideology, which is a driver that leads individuals to commit violent terroristic acts. This also allows the penetration of Muslim immigrants who hold radical Islamic ideologies through U.S. immigration.

Worse yet, our federal government is taking advice from Muslim Brotherhood operatives like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), who in the document An Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group explains their strategy for the Muslim Brotherhood in North America as leading a “grand jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated.” We can’t seek national security guidance from groups and individuals who want to subvert our government and the American way of life.

Senator Cruz’s office says that the panel will specifically focus on ways that the administration has sought to undermine its own investigators.

The hearing will examine the Obama administration’s refusal to attribute the terrorist threats we face with radical Islam, hobbling our ability to combat the enemy. The hearing will specifically investigate how the federal government has not only refused to appropriately identify the specific threat of radical Islam, but has sought to undermine the people and information who have sought to highlight the threat.

Speakers will include a number of former US investigators, including Andrew C. McCarthy, a former Federal prosecutor of radical Islamic terror cases, and Phil Haney, a former Homeland Security officer who has charged that his databases on the entry of radicals into the United States were destroyed by the Clinton State Department.  Michael German, also of the FBI.  Rounding out the panel will be speakers from groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and Muslim Advocates, who will defend the proposition that Islam is being mistreated by those who wish to tie it to terror attacks such as San Bernardino or the Orlando shooting.

Here at CounterJihad we will have full coverage of these hearings.  Please join us for live coverage, and be sure to tune in to the hearings themselves on CSPAN-3.

Denial Will Not Defeat Islamist Terror, Mr. President

O denial

Muslims, in fact, call these terrorists Islamists and jihadis–the groups’ own descriptions of themselves.

MEF, by Raymond Stock
Fox News
June 27, 2016

Before delivering his angry lecture June 14 about why he rejects the term, “radical Islam,” President Barack Obama assured us that the Islamic State (IS) is being driven steadily back in Syria and Iraq, and that our campaign against it is “firing on all cylinders.” The next day, his spokesman, Josh Earnest, bragged–despite what happened the previous weekend in Orlando–that the country “is safer than it was eight years ago.”

But then CIA chief John O. Brennan, speaking to the the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence last Thursday, completely shattered those claims. And June 20, the Department of Justice censored the numerous pledges to IS and its leader in the transcript of a phone call made by the Orlando terrorist, Omar Mateen, only to quickly backtrack from this Stalinesque act of attempted memory erasure that would hinder our grasp of the killer’s actual motivation, after howls of Congressional and media protest.

IS (also known as ISIS, ISIL and Daesh), Brennan said, is spreading farther and faster than ever before, has up to 5,000 to 8,000 soldiers in Libya, another 7,000 in Nigeria, and now has nearly as many in Iraq and Syria (18,000 to 22,000) as when our air campaign against it began two years ago. Moreover, it is setting up terror cells and sending its trained fighters all over the world, while inspiring attacks by so-called “lone wolves” everywhere.

Of course, there are no “lone wolves.” There are only individuals already joined in thought with the Islamist movement, who answer the standing call to launch attacks on their own at home if not abroad–as Omar Mateen evidently did in the Pulse nightclub the night of June 12/13. “You never walk alone” could well be the motto of the global jihad, which was very quick, as always, to claim him as a martyr.

Though Brennan, like Obama before him, nonetheless claimed the group was “on the defensive,” he depicted IS as an enemy aggressively on the march globally, even if it is losing some ground it had previously gained in Iraq and Syria. In other words, like so many other times in the past, one of his own high-level national security officials shows us that the president is not telling the truth–not to us and probably not to himself—about these issues.

IS is part of a wave of interrelated movements that have arisen out of the heart of Islamic societies worldwide.

Defending his refusal to name the enemy, Obama sniffed peevishly that “radical Islam” is a “talking point: it isn’t a strategy.” But the talking point is really Obama’s: all informed analysts of the problem know that IS is not an isolated “extremist” threat, but part of a wave of numerous interrelated movements that have arisen out of the heart, not merely the fringes, of Islamic societies worldwide—even if most Muslims do not support them.

And for all of our recent gains on the ground in Iraq and Syria, our brilliant assassination raids against IS leaders in the area, and the harm to its varied financial empire we are inflicting, it is we, not the terrorists, who are on the defensive. We, in fact, are losing overall, thanks to a strategy that denies the clear nature of the threat.

It is, after all, both blinding and enervating to fight an enemy you cannot or will not name. It is even more enervating to fail to commit the kind of military force necessary to cut out what Secretary of Defense Ash Carter has called the “parent tumor” of IS’s claimed caliphate in Syria and Iraq—which, if done early, could have halted the group’s catastrophic global metastasis in the past two years.

In his speech, Obama also insisted that the Orlando killer was simply a disturbed young man with no ties to outside groups, despite his allegiance to IS and his praise for other jihadis. And he repeated his earlier claim that Mateen was radicalized entirely by the Internet, when in fact he grew up in a pro-Taliban Afghan immigrant family and cheered the attacks of 9/11 while watching them on live TV.

Of course, as Obama said, mere use of the phrase would not change the war by itself. But it would radically change our strategic policy toward Islamism–a movement he himself has aided via the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Tunisia and Yemen, and by waging a half-hearted military struggle against other elements of the jihad, like IS and al-Qaeda (AQ). Not to mention his disastrous nuclear deal with Iran, which handsomely rewarded what the State Department has justrecertified as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism—while giving it a legal glide-path to building the bomb in a decade.

It would also end the “confusion,” as FBI Director James Comey put it in a media appearance of his own the same day, how to interpret terrorist acts like those in San Bernardino and Orlando. If a perpetrator pledges loyalty to multiple Islamist groups, that doesn’t raise questions about his or her motives. Rather, it means the killer correctly sees the jihad as one–despite internal quarreling such as between IS and AQ, or even between Shi’ite Iran and Sunni groups it sometimes fights and sometimes aids–something the current administration sadly (and willingly) fails to grasp.

For example, the Iranians (Shi’a) sometimes harbor and support AQ members (Sunnis), while fighting AQ in Syria. The Iranian regime not only calls for the unity of jihadi groups (both Sunni and Shi’a) in waging the global jihad against unbelief, but actually funds Sunni groups like Hamas and the MB, and arms and finances the fiercely anti-Shi’a Taliban, all for ideological and strategic reasons.

And they accept that help, also for ideological and strategic reasons. AQ and IS members worked together to launch attacks in France and Belgium. And while it is true that Mateen was an obviously unstable person, as Obama noted, that is one of the profiles of the ideal recruit–one who is already a bit marginalized and harbors general anti-social sentiments.

Worse, Obama says that using “radical Islam” (or any term that would link “extremism” with Islam)–words he has had scrubbed from FBI counterterror training manuals, and from the mouth of French President François Hollande in a video on the White House website) would mean we are declaring war on Islam as a whole. (The removal of these words brings to mind the unprecedented—and secret–excision of several minutes of a December 2, 2013 exchange about the Iran nuclear deal—which involves an Islamist power–between Fox News correspondent James Rosen and State Dept. spokeswoman Jen Psaki from the department’s official video.)

Muslims call these terrorists Islamists and jihadis. So should we.

But nothing could be further from the truth: People can distinguish between radical Islam and the religion overall. Muslims, in fact, call these terrorists Islamists and jihadis–the groups’ own descriptions of themselves. The leaders of our three most consistent allies in the fight against IS—Egypt, Jordan and Afghanistan—have each spoken of the need to thoroughly reform—even “revolutionize,” as Egypt’s President Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi has put it—mainstream Islam from within in order to stop the jihad’s appeal to young Muslims around the world. (Even in Europe, as shown here.)

In January this year, King Abdullah of Jordan spoke of the need to defeat IS from “inside Islam” (even while dismissing the it as an “outlaw,” and claiming it represents only “0.1 percent” of Muslims worldwide—which its huge popularityin online polls and websites obviously refutes).

Addressing a joint session of Congress in March 2015, Afghanistan’s President Ashraf Ghani, while calling Islam a religion of peace, acknowledged that at present there is tremendous hatred raging inside its community today. “That hatred must be challenged and overcome from within the religion of Islam,” he affirmed.

In fact, IS is made up entirely of Muslims, bases itself on a sophisticated reading of much mainstream Islamic scholarship and a literal interpretation of its sacred texts, and is the fastest growing movement in modern Islamic history. If you add as well the other jihadi trends in both Sunni and Shi’i Islam, the numbers–while hard to measure accurately because of the fear of responding honestly to polls in Muslim countries—are surely formidable.

Obama also denounced as un-American Donald Trump’s proposal to ban all Muslims temporarily from entering the U.S. And indeed it would be both unconstitutional and impractical. Trump, consistently inconsistent, has since at times refined it to a more restricted temporary ban on immigrants and refugees from Muslim countries from which there is a higher risk of jihadis infiltrating their ranks—as IS has sworn to do, and even succeeded as shown in last November’s attacks in Paris.

Despite that chilling precedent, Obama has ignored the warning of the FBI, CIA and others that we cannot properly vet them. In spite of this, he has actually accelerated the rate of entry of Syrian refugees to the U.S. in the past few weeks.

Some of Trump’s statements have truly opened him to charges of bias, against a variety of groups. Yet this POTUS’ anger, as always, seems reserved entirely for the GOP, not for IS–one of the most barbaric organizations in history–which he invariably discusses with a tone of mild irritation or boredom.

That is the most striking thing of all: he has more genuine rage and resentment for his American political opponents than he ever shows publicly toward the enemies of his country.

Our president made this peculiar appearance to announce what is obviously yet again a wholly inadequate, prevaricating strategy, and to unload his pique at those who call out his denial of both terminological and military reality. Rather, he should have proved them wrong by declaring, “We are going to end the threat of the Islamic State by taking out their capital Raqqa in a combined air and ground campaign that begins tomorrow. And next we shall cut off the heads of the vast hydra of Islamist organizations wherever they are, without delay.”

Instead, he bragged about having made IS cut its salaries–while IS is still decapitating innocents at will. Along with the rest of the jihadi alliance against the West and the millions of Muslims who do not agree with them, they are a much greater threat to us all than they were eight years ago.

Raymond Stock, a Shillman-Ginsburg Fellow at the Middle East Forum and Instructor of Arabic at Louisiana State University, spent twenty years in Egypt, and was deported by the Mubarak regime in 2010.

Missiles for Terrorists, But No Guns for Americans

screen-shot-2013-03-17-at-11.18.33-amObama is the biggest smuggler of guns to terrorists.

Obama, by Daniel Greenfield, June 27, 2016:

You won’t find many of the Democrats who pulled their phony publicity stunt over gun control backing the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act. It was after all their very own administration that chose to sendF-16 fighter jets, not to mention other serious firepower, to the Muslim Brotherhood regime that ruled in Egypt before being overthrown by military intervention and popular protests.

Not only was the Muslim Brotherhood regime linked to Hamas, which was designated as a foreign terrorist group by the State Department, but it had helped ISIS open up a front in the Sinai. Hamas is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. Al Qaeda is currently run by a Brotherhood splinter group. Osama bin Laden had been a member of the Brotherhood. Zarqawi, the founder of the group that eventually became ISIS, was freed as a gesture to the Muslim Brotherhood. If the Muslim Brotherhood were any more involved in Islamic terrorism, it would have copyrighted the term.

But Secretary of State John Kerry had defended the weapons giveaway to the Brotherhood by claiming that, “Not everything lends itself to a simple classification, black or white.” Apparently aiding Islamic terrorists defies simple classification. Not everything is black and white. Sometimes it’s bright red.

While Democrats have harped on gun sales to potential terrorists, their own government was responsible for selling far more lethal weapons to far more dangerous Islamic terrorist groups.

Our weapons have gone to such diverse forces for democracy in Syria as the Islamist militias operating under the moniker of the Free Syrian Army whose leader defended Al Qaeda and the majority of whose commanders wanted to work with Al Qaeda, Jaysh al-Qasas, a former ally of ISIS and Ghuraba al-Sham, which had called for slaughtering Americans “like cattle” and whose former leader had ISIS ties.

The Free Syrian Army had included the Farouq Brigades, which forced non-Muslims to pay Jizya taxes and which became notorious when one of its commanders was filmed eating a heart. The Muslim Brotherhood’s Tawheed Brigade, which was part of the Free Syrian Army, the Syrian Islamic Liberation Front and the Islamic Front, had called for imposing Sharia in an Islamic State alongside Al Qaeda.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s Mujahadeen Army, which included such democratic secular brigades as the Glory of Islam Brigade, the Islamic Light Movement, the Rightly Guided Brigades, the Lions of Islam and the Swords of Islam, and the Islamist Nour al Din al Zinki got TOW missiles.

Despite the feverish enthusiasm of Democrats for running background checks on Americans buying guns, they had no interest in conducting background checks on the Islamic terrorist groups they were sending missiles to.

The biggest smuggler of weapons to terrorists isn’t hiding in a cave somewhere in Pakistan. He isn’t living in exile in a villa in Latin America. Instead he lives in comfortable luxury in the White House.

Obama had secretly authorized Timber Sycamore, the code name that stood for an alliance with the Saudis to smuggle assault rifles and missiles to Syrian Jihadists. He endorsed a Qatari weapons smuggling operation to Libyan Jihadists which the White House later admitted was aiding “Islamic militant groups” who were “more antidemocratic, more hard-line, closer to an extreme version of Islam”. NATO forces around Libya were told to turn a blind eye to the weapons smuggling.

Guns and missiles flowed through Benghazi on orders from Obama. But the impetus had come from Hillary Clinton. The same Hillary Clinton who is so vocal about gun control in America fought to arm Jihadists in Libya. And Hillary also insisted that even more had to be done to arm Syrian Jihadists as well.

Obama, Hillary and other Democrats seem to think that Americans can’t be trusted with guns, but Islamists can. They’re as passionate about arming Islamic terrorists as they are about disarming Americans.

The Democrats blamed the Orlando Islamic terrorist attack by Omar Mateen on homophobia. Meanwhile the administration continues to aid Shiite militias that murder gay men.

Asaib Ahl al-Haq, also known as The League of the Righteous, is backed by Iran, and like its “moderate” backer in Tehran has become notorious for its massacres of gay men. Asaib Ahl al-Haq has beheaded gay men. The death total has been estimated to be higher than in the Pulse nightclub massacre.

Today Asaib Ahl al-Haq is a key player in the campaign against ISIS. Shiite militias are in charge in Iraq and American support for the Shiite effort, like its support for the Sunni effort in Syria, means support for Jihadist groups.

Obama freed the leaders of Asaib Ahl al-Haq, even though aside from its massacres of gay men, Asaib Ahl al-Haq has claimed credit for thousands of attacks on Americans. It had abducted and murdered American soldiers. And it continues to threaten Americans in Iraq today. Yet the United States has acted as its air force and its terrorists and killers allegedly carry our weapons.

Obama’s Iran nuke deal has funded a major arms shopping spree by the Islamic terror state. And yet the Democrats so dedicated to gun control were enthusiastically in favor of a plan which allows Iran to toy with nuclear technology whose destructive capability is so far above that of any gun that the latter might as well not even exist. They also have no problems with Iran’s weapons shopping spree.

Their philosophy continues to be that guns and missiles for terrorists are not a problem. Only Americans buying guns must be stopped even at the cost of our civil rights. And that is the problem in a nutshell.

Orlando was an Islamic terrorist attack. Democrats have put on a great show of caring about the abstract existence of firearms, but none about the threat of Islamic terrorists. Guns do not shoot themselves. Their lack of concern and interest in the motives of Islamic terrorists is the problem.

Obama has dispensed guns to Islamic terrorists without bothering with any background checks. Media accounts repeatedly spew nonsense about how Islamic Jihadists dedicated to establishing systems of Sharia law are really secular and democratic moderates. The same newspapers and news networks that are horrified at the idea of an American being able to purchase an AR-15 see no problems with Islamic terrorists getting their hands on everything from TOW missiles to F-16 jets.

Even Islamic terrorists who were allied with groups officially listed as terrorists still received weapons and support. That is unacceptable. And we may never know the full consequences of that treason.

If the Democrats really want gun control, then let them start by controlling the flood of guns and missiles going to terrorists. Not to mention drug cartels. If they really want gun control, then they can start by ending the sale of weapons to regimes tied to terrorism, including Qatar and Saudi Arabia. If they really want gun control, then they can prevent the recurrence of similar weapons smuggling schemes to Islamist groups by signing on to theMuslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act.

Defenseless in the Face of Our Enemies

Lynch with OWhat keeps America from protecting itself against radical Islam?

National Review, By Andrew C. McCarthy — June 25, 2016

The 6 Things Obama Doesn’t Want You to Know About the Islamic State

AFP

AFP

Breitbart, by Dr. Sebastian Gorka, June 24, 2016:

It’s official. The Administration of President Barack Obama does not want you to understand the danger that you, your friends, your family, and your loved ones are in.

With the recent attempt at the Cabinet level of the U.S. Government by Attorney General Loretta Lynch to censor what the terrorist responsible for the greatest terror attack since 9/11 was saying on the phone to the 911 dispatcher during the Orlando massacre, we have the smoking gun of Orwellian “Newspeak” in America.

Barack Obama and his political appointees and cabinet members have been trying for more than five years to explain away the jihadi threat to America and misdirect your understanding of how serious the dangers are. To quote my good friend Tom Joscelyn atThe Long War Journal, it is a systematic effort to make you, “disconnect the dots.”

Here are the things that the Obama Administration does not want you to know.

One: America is losing the war against the global jihadi ideology.

Although written by a liberal scholar using politically correct verbiage, the facts detailed in a recent report published by Duke University titled “Muslim-American Involvement in Violent Extremism, 2015” cannot be denied. Figure One shows how many jihadi plots there have been in America since September 11th. As you can see, 2015 saw the greatest number of jihadi plots on U.S. soil since those horrific events in Manhattan, Washington, and Pennsylvania. This is despite the fact that just days before the San Bernardino attack, both President Obama and Secretary Kerry announced that ISIS is “contained” and “we are winning!”

Screen Shot 2016-06-24 at 11.07.02 AM

Two: There is no such thing as lone wolf terrorism.

The idea that we have disparate individuals across America that just decide one day to kill their fellow Americans is utterly and absolutely fallacious. Whether it is the first nineteen terrorists responsible for the original September 11th attacks, whether it is Major Nidal Hassan, the Fort Hood Shooter; or the Tsarnaev brothers responsible for the Boston Marathon Bombing; Malik and Farook, the San Bernardino killers; or last weekend’s attacker, Omar Mateen – these individuals are all connected. The connective tissue between them is the ideology of Global Jihadism, their belief that they are fighting for Allah (not “God,” as Loretta Lynch would have you believe, but Allah, the God of Islam).

Three: ISIS is much more powerful and much more dangerous than al Qaeda.

Unlike al Qaeda, ISIS has managed to achieve that which no other jihadi terrorist group has ever been able to achieve: the declaration of a theocratic Islamic state in the 21stCentury. At the end of June 2014, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi declared from the pulpit of the Grand Mosque in Mosul that the Islamic Empire is back and he is its new emperor, or Caliph. Unclassified U.S. Government estimates state that ISIS has been making between $2 and $4 million every day from its illicit activities, it has recruited more than 85,000 jihadi fighters, more than 6,000 of whom are Westerners, including Americans, and it now has 6 million people living on its territory in multiple countries. This is no “JV Team.” ISIS has taken their team to the Superbowl.

Four: ISIS is here in America.

Omar Mateen, the jihadi responsible for the Orlando atrocity, is the 103rd terrorist interdicted on U.S. soil since Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi declared the Caliphate than two years ago. This is not a question of a threat 8,000 miles away in Mesopotamia or in Afghanistan; this is a threat that is already well entrenched on the shores of the United States. If you examine the details in the report I co-authored with my wife, ISIS: The Threat to the United States, the most disturbing fact of all is that, of all the people we have interdicted on U.S. soil, a full third of them had no interest in traveling to the Middle East to be jihadis in Iraq or Syria, but had decided the best way to serve the new caliph, the new emperor of Islam, would be to kill American infidels on U.S. soil. The threat is not an if, it is NOW. And if the White House doesn’t change its strategy, there will be more attacks like Orlando.

Five: As a nation, we are weaker than we have ever been since September 11th.

Although America is the most powerful nation the world has ever seen, the systematic subversion of our national security establishment under the banner of inclusivity, cultural awareness, and political correctness has continued to increasingly endanger Americans. In a memo sent from the White House in 2011 to the then-Attorney General and the General of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Executive ordered that, in the name of multiculturalism and mutual respect, any mention of Islam was to be excised from government counterterrorism training within all of the armed services, and even federal law enforcement, including the FBI, and our various intelligence agencies. This means that even words like ‘jihad,’ which are the terms used by the terrorists to describe themselves, are and have been banned from use within the U.S. federal government. This means that our law enforcement, intelligence, and military operators have been denied access to accurate information and relevant training for several years. Subsequently, they are not in a position to understand our Enemy and defeat them.

Six: Lastly, the Obama Administration does not want you to know that the ideology of global jihad is more powerful than it has ever been.

ISIS has captured the brand of Global Jihadism from its former master, al Qaeda. Today, not only has it established a Caliphate in the Middle East, but it has also convinced tens of thousands of young Muslims that the End Times have begun, since the territory they have captured—referred to as “al Sham” in the Islamic eschatology—is the equivalent of Megiddo for Muslims, i.e. the site of the last Holy War before Judgement Day. As a result of this very effective exploitation of an apocalyptic religious theme being broadcast daily over social media (ISIS posts more than 55,000 social media posts every 24 hours), ISIS now has at least 43 affiliates in 19 countries, and they show no sign of losing momentum.

Loretta Lynch said this week, after the Orlando massacre, that our most powerful weapon against people like Omar Mateen is “love.” She is wrong. Love would not have worked against the Nazis or the totalitarians in the Kremlin. We are facing another totalitarian enemy that will not be negotiated with and that will not stop unless every “infidel” is enslaved or crushed. That truth is impossible for the President and his bubble-dwelling coterie to believe. As a result, Americans will continue to face an escalating risk until we have a change of administration.

The question is, will the new Commander-in-Chief perpetuate the lies and distortions of the last eight years or finally talk truthfully about the incarnate Evil that we face and what it will take to destroy it.

Dr. Sebastian Gorka is a National Security Editor for www.Breitbart.com and the author of the New York Times bestseller, Defeating Jihad. You can follow him on Twitter@SebGorka.

The Failure to Define the Enemy and Victory Enhances the Threat

ISIS-Trucks1

Providence Magazine, by Kyle Shideler | June 24, 2016

The jihadist terror attack in Orlando that killed 49 people relaunched two major policy debates regarding the U.S. response to the challenge of Islamic State. The first was represented by President Obama’s claims of the successful prosecution of the war against an increasingly weakened Islamic State, a position seemingly contradicted by Director of National Intelligence John Brennan.

The second was the ongoing debate over the Obama Administration’s marked refusal to describe terror attacks using the Islamic terminology. This debate reached a fever pitch as the Department of Justice went so far as to censor a transcript of the Orlando shooter’s 911 call only to be forced to reverse themselves after widespread condemnation.

Interesting insight into both these policy questions can be gained through an examination of a recent statement by Islamic State Spokesman Abu Mohamed al-Adnani.

Adanai issued a public declaration in late May of this year entitled, “That They Live By Proof”, issuing a call for attacks against the West, a call evidently answered by Orlando shooter Omar Mateen.

Adnani used the declaration to examine claims that the western-backed coalition is defeating the Islamic State. After a discussion of early Western declarations of victory in battle against Islamic State’s predecessor Al Qaeda in Iraq only for the group to revive itself as the Islamic State, Adnani notes:

True defeat is the loss of willpower and desire to fight. America will be victorious and the mujahidin will be defeated in only one situation. We would be defeated and you victorious only if you were able to re-move the Quran from the Muslims’ hearts [emphasis added].

Adnani’s comments are not mere gusto, and they are not simply attempts to justify perceived failures, as was widely assumed at the time.

Adnani is revealing where the Islamic State’s “center of gravity” is. The Department of Defense’s Joint Publication 1-02 Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms defines center of gravity as “The source of power that provides moral or physical strength, freedom of action, or will to act.”

U.S. Army Counterinsurgency doctrine notes that understanding the enemy’s center of gravity is a crucial step to achieving victory.

For Adnani, this center of gravity is a faith that necessitates fighting until Islamic law is implemented and nonbelievers and hypocrites (that is, Muslims who do not adhere to Islamic law) are defeated, and he includes multiple quranic citations for evidence of his position.

If the enemy expresses its center of gravity in faith terms, and military success relies on understanding the enemy’s center of gravity and appropriately targeting it, then the question of whether the U.S. is defeating Islamic State, and the question of whether the U.S. should utilize the doctrinal terms used by the enemy are not in fact two policy questions at all, but rather a singular question.

In the 2006/2007 edition of the U.S. Army War College strategy journal Parameters, Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Myers authored a book review of The Quranic Concept of War by Pakistani Brigadier General S.K Malik. Written in 1979, The Quranic Concept of War is a military strategy tract endorsed by Pakistan’s former President Zia al-Haq. Myer notes that Malik locates the center of gravity:

[I]n war as the “human heart, [man’s] soul, spirit, and Faith.” Note that Faith is capitalized, meaning more than simple moral courage or fortitude. Faith in this sense is in the domain of religious and spiritual faith; this is the center of gravity in war.

Malik’s views, from 1979, can be seen as essentially analogous to those expressed by Adnani. Malik sees the Quranic model of warfare in the preparation, execution and consolidation of terror in order to dislocate enemy faith, to achieve victory:

“The quranic military strategy thus enjoins us to prepare ourselves for war to the utmost in order to strike terror into the enemies, known or hidden, while guarding ourselves from being terror-stricken by the enemy…in war, our main objective is the opponent’s heart or soul, or our main weapon of offence against this objective is the strength of our own souls, and to launch such an attack, we have to keep terror away from our own hearts [emphasis in the original].

This view appears consistent among jihadist organizations and is reflected in Abu Bakr Naji’s Management of Savagery, an Al Qaeda strategy manual from 2004 held in high esteem by Islamic State. Regarding waging jihad, Naji writes:

If we are not violent in our jihad and if softness seizes us, that will be a major factor in the loss of the element of strength… the Umma which is able to protect the positions it has won and it is the Umma which boldly faces horrors and has the firmness of mountains.

Naji proposed the careful and deliberate use of “savagery” in order to best undermine the enemy, which in turn strengthens the jihadist side.

Malik’s concept of war as being principally spiritual cum ideological warfare is reflected also in the writings of the Muslim Brotherhood jurist, Yusuf Al Qaradawi who notes, inIslamic Education and Hassan Al Banna:

They know well that the basic strength is the force of faith and belief, followed by the strength of unity and collectiveness and after both these, comes military strength [emphasis added].

Qaradawi himself noted that Islamic State Caliph AbuBakr Al Baghdadi was a former Muslim Brother, and so it comes as no surprise the two organizations share similar views in this regard.

Another Muslim Brotherhood thinker, Louay Safi, confirmed the centrality of faith as the principle focus of Islamic warfighting in his work, Peace and the Limits of War in 2001:

But when their organization and equipment are weak, and their morale falls short of the optimal situation, they are obligated to tackle no more than odds of two to one [emphasis added].

Interestingly, Safi served as a Department of Defense advisor where he argued against an understanding of the enemy in Islamic warfare terms.

Given the importance jihad theorists place on questions of faith and terror, one might hope U.S. national security officials would study these views carefully. But while Malik’s work on Quranic warfare has been discussed by a select group of counterterrorism thinkers since 2005, it has been largely ignored by decision-makers.

As a result, U.S. Special Envoy for the Islamic State campaign Brett McGurk took the opportunity to treat the Adnani declaration as a sign U.S. strategy was winning.

But if one was to examine the question from the Malik perspective however, there is no reasonable way to conclude that the U.S. and its western allies are winning.

Following the Islamic State-inspired San Bernardino shootings, a New York Times/CBS News Poll found that Americans were more fearful of terrorism than any time since 9/11. A Washington Post/ABC News Poll following the Paris attacks found similar results.

While terror is rising, faith is down. A 2012 Gallup poll noted that just 44% have “a lot of faith” in the church or “organized religion”, an all-time low. Faith is dropping in other American institutions as well. In November 2015 a survey conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute found an eleven percent increase in those who said America’s “best days are behind us”. A 2015 Gallup poll noted remarkable drops in American faith for every sizeable societal institution except the U.S. military.

While we are militarily capable of ousting Islamic State from territory, until we are prepared to understand the enemy’s center of gravity, the realm of faith, we will continue to have policy makers debate how to talk about the enemy and how to define victory, while the jihadist threat metastasizes.

Kyle Shideler is the Director of The Threat Information Office at the Center for Security Policy.

To Define Is To Limit: Obama’s Rhetorical Vacillations Leave Terror Unbound

obama-356133_1920

Philos Project, by Marc, Livecche, June 22, 2016:

On Tuesday, President Obama indulged in a particularly inane rant against those who take him to task for refusing to call the actions of self-proclaimed radical Islamists – from Fort Hood to Boston to Paris to San Bernardino and, now, to Orlando – for what they are. “What exactly would using this label accomplish?” he asked. Declaring that no strategy has been compromised by not using the term, Obama insisted that there is no military or tactical value in bothering about the language used to identify the enemy. To suggest otherwise is, to our President, simply “political distraction.” Actually, he suggests, it’s much worse than that.

Obama insisted that calling Muslims who commit terrorism in the name of their faith “radical Islamists” only plays into the hands of those same terrorists, aiding in their venture to start a war between Islam and the West. Making the extraordinary claim that using such terms validates the claim of groups like ISIL and al Qaeda that they represent all Muslims by “implying that they speak for those billion-plus people”, Obama warned the U.S. not to “fall into the trap of painting all Muslims with a broad brush and imply that we are at war with an entire religion.” To do so would be to do the terrorist’s work for them.

It turns out, Obama reassures us, that his obfuscation is actually a gambit that has “everything to do with defeating extremism.” Realizing that “calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away,” Obama revealed that by not referencing the terrorists as radical Islamists, he has avoided “fueling ISIL’s notion that the West hates Muslims.” Against this wisdom, Obama draws a bright line between those whose “loose talk and sloppiness about who exactly we’re fighting” leads them to call the enemy radical Islamists and Trump’s proposal to ban all Muslim immigrants. How, precisely, the two go hand-in-hand, the president did not make clear.

Obama challenged the U.S. by asking “What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change?” The following two suggestions are in direct response to his challenge:

First, as terrorism expert Sebastian Gorka points out in his new book Defeating Jihad, it is important to fully understand the enemy, to understand their aims and motivations, and to grasp the terms of the fight at hand. Radical Islamic terrorism is not, pace the Obama administration, “the result of poverty, unemployment, and lack of political enfranchisement.” Rather it emerges from a totalizing ideology seeking “to impose its absolute authority over the rest of the world.” Against the administration’s fallacy, only an honest analysis of the enemy will clarify the situation.

Radical Islam demonstrates a “religious fervor combined with an un-Western degree of patience that produces a lethal and unbelievably resilient commitment to its cause.” Gorka continues, “ISIS and the broader global jihadist movement pose an existential threat to the United States because they are based upon the inherently undemocratic ideology of takfiri jihad, which denies that Western democracy and Islam can peacefully coexist.” Understanding Radical Islamism for what it is helps the U.S. understand that itcannot be negotiated nor reasoned with, for these fanatics will offer no terms of surrender nor will they ever trade their own eschatological hopes for any paltry alternative offered for the sake of peace. It makes sense, even military sense, to acknowledge this.

This leads to the second point in response to Obama’s challenge. If Gorka is correct, then something crucial becomes self-evident. Several Americans are happy to have a good many Muslim friends who clearly believe that Islam and Western democracy actually canpeacefully, even happily, coexist. By qualifying as “radical Islamists” those Muslims who violently and imperialistically refuse to countenance this co-existence are instantly distanced from those that Americans label as friends. This is what definitions do.

To “define” is to specify, to bring something to conclusion. Etymologically it emerges directly from the Latin definire – to determine, to explain, to bound. That is to say: to define is to limit. Obama is worried that to call the terrorists radical Islamists is to paint with a wide brush. Quite the opposite is true: to define the terrorists for what they are is to make distinctions, it is to separate the beasts into their own fetid coral, it is to rightly limit the menace to the relative few.

Obama, in his ignorance, renders a disservice to America’s Muslim neighbors of goodwill. Not only does the president leave them (and America’s national election) vulnerable to the Donald Trumps of America – whose “straight talk” is seen as a relief from Obama’s cowardly equivocations – but in failing to make distinctions between Muslims of goodwill and the terrorists, Obama also occludes the fact that there is an internecine struggle within the Muslim world. As Gorka stresses:

We are not at war with Islam. The people most immanently in danger, in fact, are the nonviolent and non-extremist Muslims of the Middle East, such as our allies in Jordan and the modern Muslims of Egypt and the United Arab Emirates. They are on the most important front of this war, and they understand just how much religion truly matters.

While the U.S. must support these allies, not only in a shared military struggle against radical Islamists, but by coupling this martial endeavor with the crucial strengthening of America’s partner’s own information warfare campaigns and counterpropaganda measures against jihadi recruitment efforts.

Words matter, the right words matter most: they ground expectations and help set strategy. Obama’s rhetorical vacillations are a political distortion of the actual threat, and they do nothing to keep America safe.

Also see:

GUNS, ISLAM AND ORLANDO

13501966_10207010229882338_685533284270124669_nWARNING! Extremely Graphic Content!

By Bill Whittle: The massacre in Orlando is not just another case of “homegrown extremism.” Despite the shameful censoring of the transcript of the 911 call, the Orlando murders were just another step in the long, bloody march of [OMITTED]; another [OMITTED] responding to the call of [OMITTED] to commit mass murder In the name of [OMITTED].

Obama: Anti-Anti-Terrorist

Obama

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, June 18, 2016:

Barack Obama has spent his presidency cultivating Islamists, particularly from the international Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates in the United States. As we saw this week, he chafes at the term “radical Islam” — as do his Islamist advisers. At their insistence, he had instructional materials for training government agents purged of references to Islamic terms that illuminate the nexus between Muslim doctrine and jihadist terror.

Obama’s vaunted national-security strategy, “Countering Violent Extremism,” is Orwellian. The term CVE supplants identification of our jihadist enemies with the wooly notion that “violence” can be caused by any form of “extremism” — it has nothing to do with Islam. By transferring security responsibilities from government intelligence agents to Muslim “community leaders” (often, Islamist groups), CVE actually encourages violent extremism.

These steps have been reckless. They have made our nation more vulnerable to the kind of jihadist atrocities we saw last weekend in Orlando. So obvious is this that many Obama critics have gone from thinking the unthinkable to saying it aloud: The president of the United States seems to be intentionally betraying our national security; even if not squarely on the side of the terrorists, Obama is such an apologist for their Islamist grievances that he might as well be.

I don’t buy this. Oh, I believe Obama is betraying our national security, but I do not think he is doing so intentionally. Instead, he has the good intentions, such as they are, of a left-wing globalist. The president sees security as a matter of international stability, not of a single nation’s safety — not even of that single nation that has entrusted him with its security.

To grasp Obama’s conception of security, we must revisit a progressive fantasy oft-lamented in these columns, “moderate Islamists.” This is where the Muslim Brotherhood comes in.

Here in the West, “moderate Islamist” is a contradiction in terms. An Islamist is a Muslim who wants to impose sharia (Islam’s repressive law) on a society. In the United States, that would mean replacing our Constitution with a totalitarian, discriminatory system. That is an extremely radical goal, even if the Islamist forswears violence and promises to proceed in Fabian fashion. Therefore, from the perspective of our free society, Islamists are the very antithesis of moderates.

For a post-American transnational progressive like Obama, however, the context that matters is not our society. It is the world. He is the first president to see himself more as a citizen of the world who plays a critical role in American affairs than as an American who plays a critical role in international affairs.

Viewed globally, the Brotherhood seems — in fact, it is — more moderate than ISIS, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and other infamous terrorist groups. I say “other” terrorist groups because the Brotherhood surely is one, which is why it should be formally designated as such under U.S. law.

As I outlined in The Grand Jihad, the Brotherhood promotes terrorism. Its doctrine prominently includes jihad, and it has a long history of violence that runs to this very day. Indeed, Hamas — a terrorist organization that the Brotherhood masquerades as a “political” “resistance” movement — is the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch.

Nevertheless, four things separate this very sophisticated organization from other jihadists:

(1) The Brotherhood pretends to reject violent jihad, especially when dealing with Western audiences.

(2) The Brotherhood opportunistically limits its overt support for jihad to situations that the international Left feels comfortable excusing (e.g., violence against “occupation” by Israel, or by American troops fighting Bush’s “unnecessary war of aggression” in Iraq).

(3) The Brotherhood purports to condemn terrorist acts that it believes, judging from a cost-benefit analysis, are likelier to harm than to advance the sharia agenda (particularly the Brotherhood’s lucrative fundraising apparatus in the West). A good example is the 9/11 atrocities (but note that even there, the Brotherhood, like the rest of the Left, always adds that American foreign policy is jointly culpable).

(4) The Brotherhood aggressively pursues a menu of nonviolent advocacy and sharia proselytism, known in Islamist ideology as dawah. As Brotherhood honcho and major Hamas backer Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi puts it, “We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America, not through the sword but through dawah.”

For present purposes, the most salient of these Brotherhood strategies is the fourth. The menu includes international diplomacy, participation in various countries’ political processes, exploitation of civil-rights laws in various countries’ court systems, strong presence on college campuses (administration, faculty, and student societies), vigorous fundraising under the guise of charity, and aggressive influence peddling in the media and popular culture.

Significantly, it is this menu of nonviolent pressure points, not violent jihad, that is the Brotherhood’s public face in the West. That is what enables the organization to pose as a comparatively moderate political and ideological movement, not a jihadist organization. That is what allows Brotherhood operatives to pass themselves off as “civil-rights activists” and social-justice warriors, not sharia radicals.

This meticulously cultivated moderate pose is the Potemkin foundation on which Obama and other transnational progressives, including a fair number of leading Beltway Republicans, cooperate with the Brotherhood throughout the world.

Obama is anxious to work with the Brotherhood on the Left’s theory that dialogue and cooperation always promote international stability — rather than convey that America’s principles are negotiable. Obama embraces the Brotherhood for the same reason that he negotiates with our enemies in Iran: the illusion that any talk is good talk; that any deal is a boon, regardless of how one-sided. The American wants peace through strength; the post-American globalist prefers peace “processes” and their inevitable peace “prizes.”

As a practical matter, Obama cannot negotiate with ISIS or al-Qaeda. He would if he could, but they won’t. They are interested only in conquest, not compromise. By comparison, the Brotherhood does seem moderate — but only by comparison with these barbaric, full-throttle terror networks. Unlike ISIS, the Brotherhood is amenable to suspending the jihad while taking the concessions it can get through diplomacy and political processes — then going right back to jihad promotion when these alternatives have been exhausted.

The Brotherhood is well regarded by many Sunni Islamist regimes with which our government hopes to cooperate in containing the regional aggression of Shiite Iran (aggression materially supported by Obama’s obsessions with deals and dialogue). There has even been a recent thaw between the Brotherhood and Saudi Arabia: Relations turned icy when the Saudis backed the ouster of Egypt’s Brotherhood-led government; but with Obama canoodling with Tehran, Riyadh has grown desperate for any allies it can find.

On the world stage, the stage they care about, transnational progressives portray the Brotherhood as “moderate Islamists,” partnership with whom is vital if we are to achieve the panacea of global stability.

The con job actually gets worse than that. The Brotherhood has figured out that “democracy” in Muslim-majority countries is the quickest route to imposing sharia. So it has taken on the mantle of “democracy” champions. By backing the Brotherhood, Beltway progressives purport to promote a “democratic transformation” of the Muslim Middle East. The fact that it would be a transformation to an anti-democratic, discriminatory, liberty-crushing system is, for progressives, as irrelevant as the fact that Obama’s empowering of the monstrous Tehran regime destroys the democratic aspirations of pro-Western Iranians. The progressive conception of stability — cooperation with rogues — is no friend of freedom.

The Brotherhood has devoted three generations to building an infrastructure in the United States — an impressive network of affiliated Islamist organizations. To partner with the Brotherhood internationally therefore requires embracing the Brotherhood domestically. But how can Obama and other transnational progressives pull that off? After all, as we’ve seen, the Brothers may seem like “moderate Islamists” when they’re in the same neighborhood as ISIS; but here on our own soil, an Islamist is plainly a radical.

Obama pulls it off by distorting law and history to sanitize the Brotherhood’s American Islamists.

Here, we must consider the progressive version of the Cold War. The Left clings to the conviction that the “mere” advocacy of radical ideology is constitutionally protected, even if what’s being advocated is the overthrow of our constitutional system itself. Symmetrically, the Left also holds that (a) anti-Communism was more dangerous than Communism, and (b) the “living” Constitution can be “evolved” whenever necessary to protect aggressive “dissent” by the Left’s constituencies.

Put it all together and you have Obama’s two core conceits:

First, the Constitution immunizes the Brotherhood’s ideology from government scrutiny. Our agencies must deem anti-American sharia-supremacist advocacy as “constitutionally protected activity,” no matter how virulently anti-American it is; no matter that it supports Hamas (material support for which is actually a felony under American law); and no matter how many Islamists make the seamless transition from Brotherhood indoctrination to membership in other, more notorious terrorist organizations.

Second, anti-terrorism is more of a danger to “our values” (i.e., Obama’s values) than is the regrettable but unavoidable fact that squelching anti-terrorism will result in the occasional terrorist attack — which Obama regards as more of a nuisance fit for law-enforcement procedures than a national-security challenge.

There you have it: Obama is not really pro-jihadist; he is anti-anti-terrorist. As long as they don’t appear to be blowing up buildings, sharia supremacists are not only shielded from scrutiny; our president welcomes the Brotherhood into our national-security apparatus in order to reverse what progressives see as the dangerous excesses of real counterterrorism.

That is how you end up with such lunacy as “Countering Violent Extremism.” That is how the jihad shakes off its post-9/11 shackles on the road to Orlando. So don’t say “radical Islam,” much less obsess over the carnage at the Pulse nightclub. After all, look how stable Obama’s globe has become.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is as senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.