Investigation: Trump Admin Hit With at Least One National Security Leak a Day, Threatening U.S. Operations

Getty Images

Washington Free Beacon, by Adam Kredo, July 6, 2017:

The Trump administration is battling an unprecedented wave of national security leaks that are appearing in the press at least once a day, significantly more than either the former Obama or Bush administration experienced in the same time frame, according to a new Senate investigation that warns these leaks are endangering U.S. security operations and relations with allied nations.

“Since President Trump assumed office, our nation has faced an unprecedented wave of potentially damaging leaks of information,” according to a new report published by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

“Under President Trump, leaks are flowing at the rate of one a day,” according to the report, which notes that “under President Trump’s predecessors, leaks of national security information were relatively rare.”

These leaks, often of highly classified national security information, are meant to undermine President Donald Trump’s administration and handicap his national security apparatus, according to sources inside and outside the White House familiar with the situation.

The leaks are becoming increasingly dangerous, according to both the report and separate sources, and are now endangering sensitive U.S. operations abroad.

“Leaks with the capacity to damage national security flowed about seven times faster under President Trump than during President Obama’s and President George W. Bush’s first 126 days,” according to the Senate investigation.

“The Trump administration faced 125 leaked stories—one leak a day—containing information that is potentially damaging to national security under the standards laid out in a 2009 Executive Order signed by President Barack Obama,” according to the report, which examined open-source material published during the first months of the Trump administration.

The investigations discovered at least “125 stories with leaked information potentially damaging to national security,” according to the report, which states that “even a narrow search revealed leaks of comparable information during the Trump administration that were about seven times higher than the same period during the two previous administrations.”

The leaks are kneecapping the Trump administration and preventing it from protecting the United States.

“President Trump and his administration have faced apparent leaks on nearly a daily basis, potentially imperiling national security at a time of growing threats at home and abroad,” the report states. “The commander-in-chief needs to be able to effectively manage U.S. security, intelligence operations and foreign relations without worrying that his most private meetings, calls and deliberations will be outed for the entire world to see.”

The unauthorized disclosures ranged from information about Russia’s alleged interference in the 2016 election to intimate conversations Trump had with foreign leaders inside the White House. Other articles includes classified information about U.S. operations against terror organizations abroad.

The Senate committee notes that all such disclosures are punishable by jail time under federal law.

The majority of these leaks, at least 78, concerned Russia and a possible probe into alleged collusion between a Trump official and Moscow, according to the investigation.

“Other leaks disclosed potentially sensitive intelligence on U.S. adversaries or possible military plans against them,” the report notes. “One leak, about the investigation of a terrorist attack, caused a diplomatic incident between the United States and a close ally.”

The report is referring to leaks that detailed Israeli intelligence about ISIS. The disclosure of this information is said to have angered the Israelis and caused a rift between Jerusalem and the Trump administration.

“Leaked stories appeared in 18 news outlets, sourced to virtually every possible permutation of anonymous current and former U.S. officials, some clearly from the intelligence community,” the report found. “One story cited more than two dozen anonymous sources.”

Just about all of the stories including unauthorized leaks targeted Trump directly or those in his administration.

“In contrast, only half of the stories leaked during the comparable period of the Obama administration were about President Obama or his administration; the other half concerned President Bush and his anti-terrorism tactics,” the report found.

A majority of these stories appeared in the Washington Post and the New York Times. Many also appeared in news outlets known for their liberal bias.

Senate investigators have concluded that the “sheer volume and scope of the sources indicates that they are coming from across the government, with some clearly from within the intelligence community, given the large number of stories reporting on secret intelligence and how publications cite their sources.”

Islamopower: Meet the new Muslim PAC

Jetpac founder Nadeem Mazen has ties to the Council on American-Islamic Relations. His goal is to get more Muslims elected to city, state and federal offices across the U.S.

WND, by Leo Hohmann April 23, 2017:

A new organization called Jetpac Inc. is mobilizing to get more Muslims elected to public office in U.S. cities and states, but an investigation into the founder’s background reveals ties to the extremist Muslim Brotherhood, which has been hard at work trying to influence American politics since the 1990s.

Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to Congress, was recently promoted to the number-two man at the DNC.

The first Muslim elected to a national office was Rep. Keith Ellison, who was elected in 2006 to represent a heavily Democratic district in Minnesota. He was sworn into office with his hand on the Quran, and that singular act opened a world of possibilities for other politically minded Muslims.

But the victories since then have been few and far between, says Nadeem Mazen, and that’s why he has started Jetpac – or the Justice, Education, and Technology Policy Advocacy Center. Its sole purpose is to organize and train Muslims for elected offices at the local, state and national levels.

Mazen, Jetpac’s founder and president, became Massachusetts’ first Muslim elected to public office when he won a seat on the Boston City Council in 2013.

There have been many breakthroughs since Ellison’s election in 2006, not the least of which was Ellison’s own promotion to the No. 2 officer in charge of the Democratic National Committee behind chairman Tom Perez.

Rep. Andre Carson, D-Ind., was elected to Congress in 2008, the city of Hamtramck in 2016 became the first city to be governed by a Muslim-majority city council, and Minneapolis voters elected Ilhan Omar as the nation’s first female Muslim state legislator in November.

Ilhan Omar has aleady been honored with her own “Hijarbie,” a project by a Nigerian Muslim woman.

Ilhan, 34, came to America as a “refugee” from Somalia and was resettled in the growing enclave of Somalis in the Cedar Riverside area of Minneapolis. Not surprisingly, that Somali enclave has now amassed enough numbers to elect a Somali representative to the State House.

Civilization jihad proceeding according to plan?

This is exactly how the Muslim Brotherhood envisioned the takeover of America, through non-violent civilizational jihad, experts on the shadowy network tell WND.

Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, the current health commissioner for the city of Detroit, announced in February he was running for governor of Michigan as a Democrat.

Dr. Abdul El-Sayed with wife Sarah.

Like Ilhan, Ellison and Carson, Sayed has the full backing of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, a spinoff of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Numerous other major cities such as Minneapolis and Boston have elected Muslims to their city councils, which in turn leads to key appointments of Muslims to the police and fire departments.

But that’s not nearly enough progress, says Mazen, the Jetpac founder.

“Muslims are unbelievably underrepresented in elected office,” Mazen told the Boston Globe. “Having Muslims in elected office, the way I am, can change the narrative from being on the defensive [in the media] … to the work that we actually do around issues such as affordable housing.”

There are about 3.3 million Muslims in America, according to an estimate by Pew Research, which account for about 1.5 percent of the U.S. population. CAIR and others estimate the population could be as high as 5 to 7 million.

But the narrative provided by Mazen is mostly propaganda meant for the untrained non-Muslim ear, dutifully passed on as “news” by politically correct media outlets, says Clare Lopez, vice president of research and analysis for the Center for Security Policy and author of “Star Spangled Shariah: The Rise of America’s First Muslim Brotherhood Party.”

Lopez noted Mazen  was a founding member of the CAIR chapter in Massachusetts after serving as the president of the Muslim Student Association at MIT.

CAIR and the MSA are both off-shoots of the extremist Muslim Brotherhood, which is banned as a terrorist organization in at least half a dozen countries, including Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE.

While most Muslim politicians publicly support social justice, environmental justice, free and easy abortions, same-sex marriage and the full pallet of LGBTQ rights, that is merely a means to an end. The ultimate goal is Shariah law for Americans, Lopez said.

But who could ever get elected in America on a platform of Shariah law?

She says the Brotherhood will back candidates who wrap themselves in the liberal causes of the day and attach themselves to the Democratic Party, knowing that they have a ready-made political machine eager to push their candidates to the forefront of American politics.

“We know that the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood began planning at least a decade ago to seed the U.S. political system with young, up-and-coming, Shariah-adherent, Shariah-promoting stealth jihadist like Ilhan Omar in Minnesota – now it’s happening – they are shrewdly using our own system against us – via Star Spangled Shariah.”

Omar made headlines Thursday when she was one of only two lawmakers to vote against a bill in the Minnesota State House that would allow life insurance companies to deny death benefits to the families of dead terrorists.

Two years ago, on March 12, 2014, the Muslim Brotherhood launched its own political party, the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations. But that hasn’t changed its longtime modus operandi of working with and through friendly non-Muslim organizations and parties.

With the Democratic Party already in the bag, the Brotherhood scored another hit this past week when the U.S. Green Party instructed its activists to cooperate with and build political networks with CAIR and other Muslim groups at the grassroots level.

Cover page and title of the briefing paper published by the Green Party

The Council of Muslim Organizations is an umbrella organization whose membership reads like a Who’s Who of leaders in Brotherhood front groups – with the goal of getting more Muslim representation in Washington and in state capitols, according to a report by Investor’s Business Daily, IBD.

“We are aiming to bring more participation from the Muslim community, Nihad Awad, executive director of CAIR’s national office, told IBD.

IBD concluded the Council of Muslim Organizations “also aims to elect Islamists in Washington, with the ultimate objective of ‘institutionalizing policies’ favorable to Islamists — that is, Shariah law.”

But the effort precedes 2014 and actually found its genesis in 2010, said Lopez.

“What’s key to understand is how these groups are spinning off of the first generation,” she said.

In January 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gifted the Muslim Brotherhood with a key opportunity when she signed the Exercise of Discretionary Authority under Section 212(d)(3)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, according to a Center for Security Policy report.

That stroke of a pen by Clinton allowed Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al Banna, to enter the United States for the first time since the Department of Homeland Security revoked his visa in July 2004.

Less than four months later, on May 5, 2010, Project Mobilize, which included board members with ties to multiple Muslim Brotherhood front organizations, was founded by M. Yasser Tabara in Summit, Illinois.

At its website, Project Mobilize’s mission included:

  • To Develop the political capital existing within the Muslim American community;
  • To Organize the Muslim American community around issues determined relevant; and
  • To Advocate on behalf of the Muslim American community to elected officials and persons with political clout so that they act upon the concerns and desires of their Muslim American constituents.

The U.S. Holy Land Foundation terror-financing trial in 2008 identified networks of Muslim groups that were moving to elevate the next generations to positions of leadership. They hit pay dirt during the Obama administration, which embedded many of these sleepers into federal agencies, where they remain to this day.

“In other words, the Islamic movement is expanding aggressively in the U.S. even while taking steps to disguise their true affiliation with the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood,” Lopez said.

A trip to Saudi Arabia

Back in 2007, a Muslim prayer leader and professor at Georgetown University, Yahya Hendi, traveled to Saudi Arabia and spoke to fellow Muslim academics. He said Islam was already becoming part of the mainstream of American society in 2007 and predicted that by the end of 2015 approximately 30 cities would have Muslim mayors. He said there would be “three or four” Muslim members of Congress by 2015 (There were two).

The only potential roadblock to continued growth of Islam in America could be the presence of “Christian extremists,” Hendi told the Saudis, as reported by the Washington Times.

Perhaps it is because that prediction has failed to materialize that the Muslim Brotherhood has been doubling down since 2014 on its political organizing.

Ann Corcoran, author of the Refugee Resettlement Watch blog, notes that the key to getting Muslims into office rests with refugee placement into cities, which inevitably leads to enclaves that vote in blocs for Muslim candidates.

“I remember hearing about Hendi’s prediction in 2007 and it struck me as very odd. Imagine the outcry if an American Catholic bishop traveled to the Vatican and said we need to have 30 Catholic mayors in the U.S.?” she said. “Or what if a Jewish rabbi went to Israel and said we envision 30 Jewish mayors by 2025? The media would have a field day with that, calling it bigoted and divisive. But the Muslims say we need more Muslim mayors and the media cheers.

“If your goal is to improve government at the city, state or national level, what should it matter what the politician’s religion is?”

Apathy and Accessory to Genocide

Women cry during the funeral for those killed in a Palm Sunday church attack in Alexandria Egypt, at the Mar Amina church, Monday, April 10, 2017. Egyptian Christians were burying their dead on Monday, a day after Islamic State suicide bombers killed at least 45 people in coordinated attacks targeting Palm Sunday services in two cities. Women wailed as caskets marked with the word “martyr” were brought into the Mar Amina church in the coastal city of Alexandria, the footage broadcast on several Egyptian channels. (AP Photo/Samer Abdallah)

NewsBusters, by Brigitte Gabriel, April 13, 2017:

The recent Palm Sunday church bombings in Egypt are part of a much larger effort to extinguish Christians from the Middle East by radical Islamists. These attacks further illustrated not only the ongoing genocide taking place, but the disgraceful efforts by the media to look the other way.

Would we do this if the religious roles were reversed? The fact is, they have never, and would never be reversed. There has never been a cohesive effort by Christians to exterminate Muslims in the name of Christ.

However, we have seen repeated efforts by those embracing Islam to commit genocide on the infidel, furthering their desire for a global Islamic caliphate.

We can go all the way back to the prophet Muhammad, who waged war as a means of spreading his message. We can look to the Crusades, the Armenian genocide, or the attempted extermination of Christians in my home country of Lebanon, which forced me to live out of a bomb shelter through much of my youth.

Still, in 2017, we see an explicit attempt by radical Islamists today to conquer by the sword, and slay the infidel in the name of Allah.

What other religion has been used to justify such organized violence against those who do not share the same faith as Islam? What other religion has been used to justify the subjugation, mutilation, and murder of women on such a massive and gruesome scale as Islam? What other religion has been used to justify the stoning of homosexuals, and tossing them off rooftops for their lifestyle choices as Islam?

Despite what radical Islamic enablers and anti-Western zealots in the mainstream media will tell you, the answer is obviously none. Spare me the idiotic and irrelevant reference to the Salem witch trials of the 17th century, we seem to have the Puritan suicide bomber threat under control.

Yet, despite reality, rather than report the news accurately and objectively, the mainstream media prefers to ignore the ongoing Christian genocide.

Why do they do this?

One can only speculate, and the answer differs based on pundit, but the most logical answer is that reality conflicts with their politically correct worldview and thus, must be hidden from the public.

The images of Syrian children who suffered horrifically, as a result of a chemical weapons attack by Assad are no doubt heartbreaking.

Why is it that a chemical weapons attack on Syrian rebels gets wall to wall coverage, when the crucifixion of Christian children by ISIS is not deemed newsworthy?

Because many in the mainstream media and anti-Western movement that engulfs it saw the chemical weapons attack as an opportunity to push their open borders narrative. They never miss an opportunity to capitalize on a crisis when it rears itself.

Yet despite the explicit extermination of Christians across the Middle East, less than one percent of all refugees taken in by the United States from Iraq and Syria have been Christian.

Think of that shameful reality. The ones who need refuge the most are shunned, yet Islamic refugees continue to pour in at an alarming rate. But apparently, this injustice isn’t nearly as appealing as one that helps paint America or its current President as “Islamophobic.”

With the way the mainstream media and politically correct politicians portray our National Security policy, you’d think the military was going around and indiscriminately rounding up Muslims for deportation.

Meanwhile in the Middle East, Christians are not only being rounded up, they’re being tortured and killed in the most gruesome fashion, regardless of age or gender. We are talking about evil being waged in the most appalling way by radical Islamists, on a mission to conquer the West by the sword of their prophet Muhammad.

Yet, our news waves are flooded with sentiments of how bigoted our President is, simply for wanting to protect our borders, and ensure proper vetting for national security purposes. Christians must band together, and stand up for those who cannot speak for themselves.

If the media refuses to cover the genocide taking place in the Middle East, it is even more incumbent upon us to spread the message, and demand action from our political leaders.

More to it, Christians must push back against this suicidal sentiment that their faith demands an open borders mentality. Instead, we must defend with great passion, the United States of America, and the Judeo-Christian values it was founded upon.

This is the greatest country in the world, and one that I could only dream of coming to while living in a bomb shelter as a young girl, praying that the radical Islamists would not find me. We must band together in this fight for the survival of our country, our faith, and our way of life.

The stakes could not be higher.

Also see:

All Hands On Deck: Supporting Trump Through Inauguration Day

handsNew Zeal blog, By: Lloyd Marcus, January 16, 2017:

Trump’s Inauguration is less than a week away. While president elect Trump appears to be extraordinarily strong dealing with the tsunami of 24/7 vitriol launched at him from the Left and Washington establishment, he is still a human being.

The Bible says when Moses grew tired, “Aaron and Hur held his hands up–one on one side, one on the other–so that his hands remained steady till sunset.”

Folks, it is extremely crucial that we hold Trump’s hands up through Inauguration day. The Left is incensed over the prospect of Trump emancipating us from their 8 years of dictatorial slavery. As delusional as this sounds, the Left hopes to block Trump from being sworn in as the 45th president of the United States.

Numerous left-wing wacko groups including paid protesters vow to”shut down” the Inauguration. http://bit.ly/2iUyzpH

Nut case, Rosie O’Donnell wants to impose martial law to delay Trump’s Inauguration. http://bit.ly/2isJAgF

Joseph Goebbels said, “If you tell a big lie enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” The Left is relentlessly repeating their huge lie that the Russians hacked the election. They want Americans to believe Russia tampered with the vote count, stealing the election from Hillary. The Left’s lie is absurd. http://bit.ly/2jc9O9r

Concluding that no gutter tactic is too low to stop Trump, CNN and BuzzFeed partnered in promoting an unverified bogus claim that Trump hired prostitutes to urinate on a hotel bed slept in by Michelle and Obama. http://bit.ly/2jw9LF2 Yes folks, this is how disgusting and evil the Left’s insanity to block Trump has become.

As I said, at the heart of the Left’s panic, fear and rage is the prospect of Americans liberated from 8 years of Leftists forcing their far-left radical, anti-God, anti-America and anti-traditional values agenda down our throats.

Pray for our president folks. Let’s all join together and hold his hands up high.

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
http://www.lloydmarcus.com/
mr_lloydmarcus@hotmail.com

***

In case you missed it Here is Jeannine Pirro’s smack down of the “illegitimate”narrative:

And as always, Andrew McCarthy gives us his penetrating analysis on the truth of what the Dems are up to:

America’s 2nd colonization: This time by Islamists

jihadivideo‘Refugees’ being moved into politically important states

WND, January 15, 2016:

As Barack Obama’s administration nears its end, the outgoing president is frantically admitting as many ‘refugees” as possible, with the overwhelming majority from Muslim countries such as Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia.

At the current rate, about 110,580 will be admitted this fiscal year, surpassing Obama’s stated goal of 110,000. The refugees are also being concentrated in politically important states, suggesting there is an ideological agenda behind the population transfers.

Some might even say America is being “colonized.”

Again.

“That term applies to what’s happening to us,” said Leo Hohmann, author of the explosive book “Stealth Invasion: Muslim Conquest Through Immigration And Resettlement.” The veteran investigative reporter says the left is quite open about how it seeks to demographically deconstruct the United States, one city at a time.

Refugees are being planted in more than 300 cities and towns, often secretly, he said, with elected officials learning about the details of the refugee placements only after the fact.

“The term preferred by the left is ‘seeding’ communities with diversity,” said Hohmann. “Basically, they are talking about creating a nation within a nation, a parallel society, that will be nurtured and taken care of until it matures and is able to overtake the host community. This sounds seditious, but we have it straight from their own mouths from people on the left such as David Lubell of the organization Welcoming America, as I exhaustively documented in ‘Stealth Invasion.’ Their idea is to change America by changing its people.”

Hohmann notes these overwhelmingly Muslim refugees tend to be settled in swing states where their votes will be important in future elections.

Read more

***

Listen to Brigitte Gabriel give the FACTS you need to know:

Does Trump Grasp the Reality of ‘Radical Islam’?

radical-islamNational Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, December 31, 2016:

It was the key national-security debate of the 2016 election. Donald Trump won the election, in no small part, because he appeared to be on the right side of it. Appeared is used advisedly: Trump was at least in the general vicinity of the bull’s-eye; his opponent wouldn’t even acknowledge the target existed — except in the most grudging of ways, and only because Trump had forced the issue.

The question boiled down to this: Are you willing to name the enemy?

After a quarter-century of willful blindness, it was at least a start. We should note, moreover, that it’s a start we owe to the president-elect. Washington, meaning both parties, had erected such barriers to a rational public discussion of our enemies that breaking through took Trump’s outsized persona, in all its abrasive turns and its excesses. Comparative anonymities (looking down at my shoes, now) could try terrorism cases and fill shelves with books and pamphlets and columns on the ideology behind the jihad from now until the end of time. But no matter how many terrorist attacks Americans endured, the public examination of the enemy was not going to happen unless a credible candidate for the world’s most important job dramatically shifted the parameters of acceptable discourse.

Trump forced the issue into the light of day. And once he did — voilà! — what was yesterday’s “Islamophobia” became today’s conventional wisdom. In reality, it was never either of these things. The former is an enemy-crafted smear (a wildly successful one) to scare off examination of the enemy; the latter is frequently wrong.

What we Cassandras have really been trying to highlight is a simple fact, as patent as it was unremarkable from the time of Sun Tsu until the 1993 World Trade Center bombing: To defeat the enemy, you must know the enemy — who he is, what motivates him, what he is trying to achieve. Being willing to name the enemy is a start. But it is just a start — the beginning, not the end, of understanding.

In his major campaign speech on the subject, Trump asserted that the enemy is “radical Islamic terrorism.” Terrorism, surely, is the business end of the spear, but “radical Islamic terrorism” is an incomplete portrait. Dangerously incomplete? That depends on whether the term (a) is Trump’s shorthand for a threat he realizes is significantly broader than terrorism, or (b) reflects his actual — and thus insufficient — grasp of the challenge.

The speech provided reasons for hope. For one thing, Trump compared “radical Islamic terrorism” to the 20th-century challenges of fascism, Nazism, and Communism. These were ideological enemies. The capacity to project force was by no means the totality of the threat each represented — which is why it is so foolish to be dismissive of today’s enemy just because jihadist networks cannot compare militarily to Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.

Furthermore, toward the end of his speech, Trump used “radical Islamic terrorism” interchangeably with “radical Islam.” Ending the spread of radical Islam, he said, must be our objective. He even referred to it as an “ideology” — though he called it an “ideology of death,” which misses the point; it is an ideology of conquest.

Trump intimated some understanding of this, too. He vowed to “speak out against the oppression of women, gays, and people of different faith [i.e., non-Muslims].” He promised, in addition, to work with “all moderate Muslim reformers in the Middle East.” The objects of radical Islamic oppression are targeted because of ideological tenets that call for dominion by sharia, Islam’s ancient totalitarian law. It is those tenets that reformers are trying to reform.

In sum, Trump showed signs of awareness that there are more than bombs, hijacked planes, weaponized trucks, and jihadist gunmen to confront. Still, his focus was terrorists — specifically ISIS, which he claimed was created by Obama-Clinton policy. While he clearly knows there is more to the threat than ISIS, he explicitly added only al-Qaeda and “Iran-backed Hamas and Hezbollah.”

To the contrary, ISIS is a breakaway faction of al-Qaeda that existed before Barack Obama came to power. Hamas, though certainly supported by Shiite Iran, is a Sunni terrorist organization spawned by the Muslim Brotherhood. More crucially: All of the groups Trump listed, and the regimes that sponsor them, were created by the ideology. While I’ll go with “radical Islam,” the ideology is more accurately described as “sharia supremacism” — alas, in the parts of the world Trump was talking about, “radical Islam” is not so radical. It is the ideology that creates jihadist groups and regimes, not American policy, no matter how clueless and counterproductive our policy has been at times.

If ISIS and al-Qaeda disappeared tomorrow, other jihadist networks would take their places. It will be that way until sharia supremacism is discredited and marginalized.

That is a tall order, not to be underestimated. The audience in which the ideology must be discredited is not Western; it does not share our value system — our sense of what is credible and meritorious. Plus, the sharia that our enemies strive to implement (i.e., “jihad in Allah’s way”) is undeniably rooted in Islamic scripture. It will not be easy — it may not be possible — to discredit a literalist construction of Islam that has been backed by revered scholars for 14 centuries.

That is why some detractors of Islam argue with considerable force that we should stop mincing words: If the problem is rooted in Islamic doctrine, they contend, then the problem is Islam, not “radical Islam.” Yet this overlooks significant facts. There is fierce intramural Islamic debate about doctrinal interpretation. Our own Judeo-Christian experience tells us that doctrine and religious practice can evolve. Belief systems, moreover, are ultimately about more than doctrine. Culture counts for a great deal. Yes, sharia supremacism is pretty much the same wherever you go (and becomes more aggressive and threatening as its adherents increase in number); but the understanding and practice of Islam varies from Riyadh to Cairo to Kabul to Ankara to Jakarta to Tirana to London.

There is, furthermore, an on-the-ground reality of much greater moment than theological infighting: A large percentage of the world’s approximately 1.6 billion Muslims reject sharia supremacism. Many of them provide us with essential help in fighting the enemy. To condemn Islam, rather than those who seek to impose Islam’s ruling system on us, can only alienate our allies. They are allies we need in an ideological conflict.

The sensible strategy, therefore, calls for supporting the Islamic reformers President-elect Trump says he wants to befriend. That would be an epic improvement over outreach to Islamists, whom our government has inanely courted and empowered for a quarter-century. To the extent we can (and that may be limited), we should support the reinterpretation of what Egyptian president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi courageously acknowledged as “the corpus of texts and ideas that we [Muslims] have sacralized over the centuries, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible” even though they are “antagonizing the entire world.”

Sisi, it is worth noting, is a devout Muslim who knows a lot more about Islam than Barack Obama and John Kerry do. In any event, it’s better to confront with open eyes the scripturally rooted ideological foundation of radical Islam. As we’ve seen over the last three presidential administrations (or the last six, if you want to go back to Carter and Khomeini’s revolution), pretending that the ideology does not exist, or that it represents a “false Islam,” is fantasy. As a national-security strategy, fantasy is a prescription for failure.

It has been the Obama prescription, right up to the end.

While candidate Trump was demanding that the enemy be named, and me-too Hillary was thus goaded into the occasional mention of “jihadists,” Obama tried to defend his refusal to invoke radical Islam. The defense was classic Obama. Part One was flat wrong: “There’s no religious rationale,” he maintained, that would justify” the “barbarism” in which terrorists engage — something that could only be right if we ignore scripture and adopt Obama’s eccentric notion of “religious rationale.” Part Two drew on Obama’s bottomless supply of straw men: “Using the phrase ‘radical Islam,’” he lectured, will not make the terrorist threat “go away” — as if anyone had claimed it would.

The point, of course, is not that there is talismanic power in uttering an enemy’s identity. It is to convey, to the enemy and to an anxious American public, that our leader comprehends who the enemy is, what the enemy’s objectives are, and what drives the enemy to achieve them.

Obviously, Obama is too smart not to know this. After eight infuriating years, I am beyond trying to fathom whether his intentional gibberish masks some misguided but well-meaning strategy, some dogma to which he is hopelessly beholden, or something more sinister. The imperative now is to address the mess he is leaving behind, not unwind how and why he came to make it.

This week, Obama betrayed our Israeli allies by orchestrating (and cravenly abstaining from) a U.N. Security Council resolution. As I’ve explained, the ostensible purpose of the resolution is to condemn the construction of Israeli settlements in the disputed territories of East Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria that Israel has controlled since 1967; the real purpose is to declare that those territories are sovereign Palestinian land, and thus that Israel is “occupying” it in violation of international law (“international law” is the gussied-up term for the hyper-political, intensely anti-Israeli Security Council’s say-so).

What does this have to do with our enemy’s ideology? Everything.

The Palestinians and the Islamist regimes that support them frame their struggle against Israel in terms of Islamic obligation. Hamas, the aforementioned Muslim Brotherhood branch that has been lavishly supported by Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, and other Muslim governments, is more explicit about this than its rival for Palestinian leadership, Fatah. But both are clear on the matter. They take the doctrinal position that any territory that comes under Islamic control for any duration of time is Islam’s forever. (That’s why Islamists still refer to Spain as al-Andalus and vow to retake it, notwithstanding that they lost it half a millennium ago.)

Further, radical Islam regards the presence of a sovereign Jewish state in Islamic territory as an intolerable affront. Again, the reason is doctrinal. Do not take my word for it; have a look at the 1988 Hamas Charter (“The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement”). Article 7, in particular, includes this statement by the prophet Muhammad:

The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say, “O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.” . . . (Related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).

Understand: Al-Bukhari and Muslim are authoritative collections of hadith. These memorializations of the prophet’s sayings and deeds have scriptural status in Islam. Hamas is not lying — this story of an end-of-times annihilation of Jews is related, repeatedly, in Islamic scripture. (See, e.g., here.) And please spare me the twaddle about how there are competing interpretations that discount or “contextualize” these hadith. It doesn’t matter which, if any, interpretation represents the “true Islam” (if there is one). What matters for purposes of our security is that millions of Muslims, including our enemies, believe these hadith mean what they say — unalterable, for all time.

Even after all the mass-murder attacks we have endured over the last few decades, and for all their claptrap about respecting Islam as “one of the world’s great religions,” transnational progressives cannot bring themselves to accept that something as passé as religious doctrine could dictate 21st-century conflicts. So, they tell themselves, the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is simply about territorial boundaries and refugee rights. It could be settled if Israel, which they reckon would never have been established but for a regrettable bout of post-Holocaust remorse, would just make a few concessions regarding land it was never ceded in the first place (conveniently overlooking that East Jerusalem and the West Bank are disputed territories, and were not “Palestinian” when Israel took them in the 1967 war of Arab aggression).

Transnational progressives see Israel as intransigent, notwithstanding its many attempts to trade land for peace. They rationalize Palestinian terrorism as the product of that intransigence, not of ideology. Thus their smug calculation that branding Israel as an “occupier” of “Palestinian land” in gross “violation of international law” is the nudge Israel needs to settle. This will effectively grant the Palestinians their coveted sovereign state. Thus accommodated, Palestinians will surely moderate and co-exist with Israel — if not in peace, then in the same uneasy state in which Parisians coexist with their banlieues and Berliners with their refugees.

It is not just fantasy but willfully blind idiocy. No one who took a few minutes to understand the ideology of radical Islam would contemplate for a moment a resolution such as the one Obama just choreographed.

Under Islamic law, the Palestinians regard all of the territory — not just East Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria but all of Israel — as Muslim territory. Furthermore, they deem the presence of a Jewish-ruled state on that territory as anathema. A Security Council resolution that declares Israeli control of the disputed territory not merely an “obstacle to peace” but illegitimate tells the Islamists that their jihad has succeeded, that non-Muslim powers accede to their sharia-based demands. It can only encourage them to continue their jihad toward their ultimate regional goal of eradicating the Jewish state. After all, Mahmoud Abbas has stated his racist terms: Not a single Israeli will be permitted to reside in the Palestinian state. As Islamists see it (and why shouldn’t they?), Obama’s reaction was not to condemn Abbas; it was to appease Abbas. As Islamists see it, Allah is rewarding their fidelity to Islamic doctrine; of course they will persevere in it.

We are not merely in a shooting war with jihadists. We are in an ideological war with sharia supremacists. Mass murder is not their sole tactic; they attack at the negotiating table, in the councils of government, in the media, on the campus, in the courtroom — at every political and cultural pressure point. To defeat jihadists, it is necessary to discredit the ideology that catalyzes them. You don’t discredit an ideology by ignoring its existence, denying its power, and accommodating it at every turn.

President Obama never got this. Will President Trump?

In his campaign, Trump made a welcome start by naming the enemy. Now it is time to know the enemy — such that it is clear to the enemy that we understand his objectives and his motivation, and that we will deny him because our own principles require it.

The new president should begin by renouncing Obama’s Palestinian power-play: Revoke any state recognition Obama gives the Palestinians; defund them; clarify the disputed (not occupied) status of the territories; move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem; reaffirm the principle that the conflict may only be settled by direct negotiations between the parties; and make clear that the United States will consider the Palestinians pariahs until they acknowledge Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, stop indoctrinating their children in doctrinal Jew-hatred, and convincingly abandon terrorism.

That would tell radical Islam that America rejects its objectives as well as its tactics, that we will fight its ideology as well as its terrorism. This is not just about restoring our reputation as a dependable ally. Our security depends on it.

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

Escape From the Life of Julia

Attendees say the Pledge of Allegiance before the arrival of President-elect Donald Trump during the first stop of his post-election tour, Thursday, Dec. 1, 2016, in Cincinnati. (AP Photo/John Minchillo)

Attendees say the Pledge of Allegiance before the arrival of President-elect Donald Trump during the first stop of his post-election tour, Thursday, Dec. 1, 2016, in Cincinnati. (AP Photo/John Minchillo)

You might be thinking this topic doesn’t fit on a counter jihad site but the momentous implications of Donald Trump defeating the political establishment include disrupting the advance of statism that the unholy alliance of Islam and leftists depend on to gain power. I love Claudia Rosett and wish she were Trump’s choice for ambassador to the UN.

PJ Media, by Claudia Rosett, December 2, 2016:

There were plenty of flaws in the victory speech with which President-elect Donald Trump just kicked off his “Thank You Tour” of swing states. I hope he’ll stick with his free-market plans to cut taxes and scrap regulations and jettison his state-planning proposal to punish companies for leaving the country (prosperity will come of free markets, not of presidentially directed industrial policy). And Shakespeare he’s not; nor, for that matter, is he a Winston Churchill or Ronald Reagan.

But when Trump stood up in front of that Cincinnati crowd, looked into the cameras of national television, and proclaimed “America will start winning again bigly,” what came over me — not for the first time since Nov. 8th — was a sweeping sense of relief.

Yes, there are yuge problems looming, at home and abroad. President Obama has guaranteed us cliff-hanger crises ahead, with his eight years of central planning, profligate spending, politicized law, apologies for America, betrayal of our allies, pandering to our enemies, and postmodern”narratives” designed to emulsify all common sense (Obama’s erstwhile legacy deal for an “exclusively peaceful” Iranian nuclear program comes to mind).

Trump, even if he pursues the wisest of plans with the best of intentions, will have his hands full. We don’t yet know how he will govern in practice. It’s likely he’s not quite sure either.

But here’s something that really is huge. With last month’s election, as underscored by the crowd celebrating Trump in Cincinnati, this country now has a fighting chance to escape the Life of Julia.

You remember “The Life of Julia”? Julia was the faceless female figure in the interactive slide show — or “online tool”  — rolled out by Obama’s re-election campaign in mid-2012, to advertise the many ways in which Obama’s brand of state-paternalism promised to usher women through life. The original campaign production has since vanished from the internet, but articles about it remain, and one enterprising soul has dug up the original Julia slides and pieced them together on YouTube. It’s a pretty good summary of where Obama has been taking America; a fundamental transformation into a statist gray zone that was the basic issue on the ballot this November.

To recap, Julia at age three prepares for kindergarten in a Head Start program improved by Obama. Her high school is part of the Race to the Top program “implemented by President Obama.” For college, she is one of millions of students receiving a Pell Grant, and her family benefits from “President Obama’s American Opportunity Tax Credit.” During college, she has surgery, which is covered by Obama’s healthcare reform, which lets her stay on her parents’ plan till she is 26.

At 23, Julia starts a career as a web designer, her “equal pay” assured by the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. She can dispense with worries about paying down her student loans, because Obama has “capped income-based student loan payments and kept interest rates low” (yes, this is the same program that now has taxpayers on the hook for $108 billion in losses, and counting). Thanks to Obamacare, her health insurance perforce covers her birth control and preventive care, and when she decides at 31 to have a child — with no visible spouse, partner or other family arrangement in sight —   Obama’s “healthcare reform” covers all maternity costs.

At 42, Julia starts her own web business — with a loan from the Small Business Administration. At 65 she enrolls in Medicare. At 67 she retires on Social Security, and thanks to her government checks (which miraculously pay for everything she needs) she can while away the rest of her time on earth volunteering at a “community garden.”

Poor Julia. Not only does she have no face, but she has virtually no individuality– even in retirement, she tends the community’s garden, not her own. She is basically a ward — and a phantasm — of the state. She spends more than six decades going from one federal program, handout, and subsidy, to the next.

Missing entirely from this vision of state-curated womanhood was any mention of the real cost, or who will cover it. As David Harsanyi asked, in a 2012 article for Human Events, “Who the hell is ‘Julia,’ and why am I paying for her whole life?

Though, as Harsanyi also noted, the financial cost to others of Julia’s state-chaperoned life is just part of the toll. There is also the deadening of the spirit — Julia’s, and ours:

What we are left with is a celebration of how a woman can live her entire life by leaning on government intervention, dependency and other people’s money rather than her own initiative or hard work. It is, I’d say, implicitly un-American, in the sense that it celebrates a mindset we have — outwardly at least — shunned.

I’d add that it’s not just women who have been designated under Obama for a life in which all roads lead to Big Brother; it’s all Americans. It’s Pajama Boy in his zip-up plaid onesie, drinking hot chocolate in his parents’ finished basement while enthusing about state-mandated health insurance. It’s the millions who have dropped out of the labor force, the taxpayers who are dunned to support the dole, the would-be employees and employers who instead of joining forces on their own terms to create wealth in the marketplace are spending their time — unemployed and out of business — trying to navigate the regulatory, redistributive maze that is the real life of Julia.

In a state in which central planners call the shots, we are less and less free to choose. Individual enterprise becomes desperately unrewarding, or even illegal. Freedom fades, and bureaucratic dictates supplant the information and incentives that are part of free markets. Economic growth declines, and people fight over access to the favors of the state elite and their bureaucratic retinue, the overlords who decide who gets what slice of the shrinking vegetarian meatloaf.

That’s the real life of Julia, the direction in which the country has been heading for too many years now, while Obama has scolded Americans that whatever they earn, or achieve, or invent, belongs — cradle-to-grave — to someone else: “You didn’t build that.”

To watch America in recent years spiraling down into the life of Julia has been excruciating. This is a country made great not by conquest, or constraints, or cross-subsidies, but by freedom and free enterprise. Long before the welfare state offered free amenities (courtesy of American taxpayers), it was freedom that drew people to America, and fueled the melting pot — the real form of “inclusivity” — once they arrived. Our true iconic figures — if you plumb the American spirit — are not Julia and Pajama Boy, but sharpshooter Annie Oakley and that out-sized folklore lumberjack of the Western frontier, Paul Bunyan. This is the country that led the way to victory in World War II, and during the Cold War stood — and in some places fought — as a bulwark of freedom.

This is the country that 30 years ago inspired the talented American newsman and humorist P.J. O’Rourke to write a brilliant and politically incorrect retort to a European critic, at the end of an article titled “Among the Euro-Weenies.” O’Rourke’s language is not for children, but below is an excerpt that will give you the gist. He’s in London, at the lit-glitz Groucho Club, listening to a European who has just been saying that Americans know nothing about war because their country has never been invaded. O’Rourke doubles down, replying:

Let me tell you who those bad guys are. They’re us. WE BE BAD… We’re three-quarters grizzly bear and two-thirds car wreck and descended from a stock market crash on our mother’s side. You can take your Germany, France, and Spain, roll them all together and it wouldn’t give us room to park our cars. We’re the big boys, Jack, the original, giant, economy-sized, new and improved butt-kickers of all time.

That is the American energy and spirit — and humor — that seems to be stirring again, after the descent toward the cramped and somnolent life of Julia.

I don’t think this American spirit is racist, or xenophobic, or misogynist, or any of the other -ists and -ics and -isms that have been tossed around during the recent election campaign, and hurled at Trump in particular. I think we are seeing America shaking off the shadow of Julia, and seeking to recover its strength, and its wits.

To recover fully is a tall order. There is by now a vast and many-layered web of entitlements and regulations that will be hard to unspin, and tempting for those now in power to preserve. There are enormous debts coming due, and there is an urgent need to restore America’s lost muscle and credibility abroad.

How far Trump might lead, or in precisely what direction, where he will falter and in what he will succeed — all these things are still unclear. Personally, I prefer the cadence of “liberty and justice for all” to such locutions as “winning again bigly.” But if Trump manages to shrink the Obama state and drain the Washington swamp, especially if he does it bigly, that would be a huge leap in the direction of liberty and justice. At least he is pointing, broadly, in the right direction. Americans have, at least for now, changed the trajectory that was dooming us to the Life of Julia. That alone is a deliverance.

Also see:

***

I can’t resist including this video. Merry Christmas everyone!!!