Obama needs to get more serious about Islamic State opportunities

Editor’s note: This is a guest post by my (imaginary) friend, the Very Honorable Ima Librul, Senator from the great State of Confusion Utopia. He expresses leftist perceptions of magical reality with refreshing clarity, for which we thank him. 

Senator Librul is a founding member of CCCEB (Climate Change Causes Everything Bad), a charter member of President Obama’s Go For it Team, a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Chairman of the Meretricious Relations Subcommittee. He is also justly proud of his expertise in the care and breeding of green unicorns, for which his Save the Unicorns Foundation has received substantial Federal grants. We are honored to have a post of this caliber by a quintessential Librul such as the Senator. Without (much) further delay, here is the Senator’s article, followed by my own observations. But first,

The world needs peace in our time which, if properly structured by the best and brightest leaders of the International Community, will become peace everlasting. Secretary Kerry is the very best of the International Community’s best and brightest.

Kerry I'm an idiot

Secretary Kerry, under the direction of our beloved leader President Obama, has demonstrated that he is fully capable of negotiating peace among the Islamic State (“IS”), Iran, Iraq, Syria and all other free and democratic states that feel threatened by its sudden emergence. True, he has not yet been able to implement even his brilliant final two state solution to for Israel, but that’s only because of the wicked obstinance of far right — but equally far wrong — Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. It is devoutly to be hoped that PM Netanyahu will soon be compelled by the International Community to do as he is told and stop being offensive to President Obama and, indeed, to all in the enlightened International Community.

The IS, like all other true believers in the religion of peace, is and will be far more accepting of Secretary Kerry’s initiatives than was the monster Israel. Secretary Kerry should:

1. Travel immediately to our greatest ally, Iran, and beg for an audience with President Rouhani, a true moderate. During the audience, Secretary Kerry should promise that Obama’s America will lift all sanctions heretofore imposed, wrongfully, against Iran. He should affirm that Obama’s America considers Iran a staunchly peaceful nation that desires nuclear weaponry only for peaceful purposes. To do otherwise would be to agree with and to promote the vile ideology of racist conservatives (please pardon me for repeating myself). On that basis, he should implore Iran to demand that Iraq, Syria and the IS seek, with his guidance and mediation, a one state solution for the entire Middle East including Iran and beyond. By doing so, Iran will succeed in her long quest for understanding and world peace everlasting.

Hang in there Iranians. Obama will help.

Hang in there Iranians. Kerry is coming.

2. A gallant war hero, Secretary Kerry should next travel fearlessly to Iraq and Syria to arrange ceasefires with the IS. As was the case with Hamas in Gaza, the IS is certain to agree, given the promise of a one state solution for the entire Middle East, under which a coalition government will be formed with representatives of Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, Assyrians, Yazidis, Turkmen, Martians, a token Christian and perhaps even a Jew (if one can still be found).

3. That done and agreed upon, Secretary Kerry should next go to Africa and convince Boko Haram not only to #Bring Back Our Girls as forcefully demanded by our gracious First Lady, but also to join with the IS in implementing a similar one state solution there.

Ms Obama and girls

4. Secretary Kerry’s monumental missions accomplished, he should return to the bosom of President Obama and find room for a Nobel Peace Prize in his treasure trove of heroism medals awarded by a grateful nation for his gallant military service during the Vietnam conflict.

The science is settled, so there can be no doubt that Secretary Kerry can and will succeed in this, his most heroic mission yet.


Editor’s Note:

Senator Librul’s magical musings about the Islamic State and what needs to be done are clearly superior to those of President “I Have No Strategy” Obama, and I did my best to help by inserting inappropriate graphics.

Unless grossly offended by the senator’s words, President Obama will do as suggested. Should Secretary Kerry then fail to do precisely as told, or to succeed, President Obama is likely to appoint either Senator Librul or Pajama Boy as our new Secretary of State. That would produce only a modest lateral change in President Obama’s foreign policies for us to believe in.



An article by Roger Kimball at PJ Media titled Evolution of the Obama Doctrine points out,

“Nature,” Galileo observed four hundred years ago, “abhors a vacuum”  That sucking sound you hear when reading the alarming list of what Secretary of State John Kerry might have dismissed as “19th-century” behavior, unbecoming of a modern, blow-dried state, that rushing wind is the sound of a profound leadership deficit. It’s what happens when a great power abdicates, when it stops acting like an adult and gives free rein to its inner community organizer, its inner selfie. It’s Lord of the Flies writ large. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

[B]etween those endless outings on the links, Obama finally seems to be waking up to the fact that all is not well. Unfortunately, in a rare moment of candor, he uttered the now infamous confession “We don’t have a strategy yet” for dealing with the Islamic State. (Panicked by the response to that little glimpse of the truth, the White House press secretary clarified: when he said “we don’t have a strategy,” Obama really meant that “we have a comprehensive strategy.” Right.) [Emphasis added.]

Perhaps the prescient Senator Librul has finally discovered President Obama’s “comprehensive strategy.”

Posted in Andrew Klavan, Bill Whittle, Chamberlain, Christians, Conservatives, Culture of violence, Foreign policy, Freedom, Gaza, Genocide, Hamas, Humor, Ideology, Iran, Iraq, Islamic Caliphate, Islamic State, Islamists, Israel, Jews, John Kerry, Leftists, Libruls, Middle East, Netanyahu, Nigeria, Nuclear weapons, Obama, Obama Nation, Obama's America, Palestinian heroes, Peace in our time, Political Correctness, Religion, Right Wing, Rouhani, Satire, Sharia law | Tagged , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Rep. Peter King on ISIS crisis in America

Obama and ISIS

There is no problem.

There is no problem.

Posted in David Cameron, Islamic Caliphate, Islamic Jihad, Islamic State, Obama, Obama's America | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The tip of the spear gets the shaft. So do all but Islamists.

Israel is the tip of the spear pointed at those whose
“holy” goal is the eradication not only of Israel but of
freedom, “non-believers” and apostates everywhere.

Israel has been stalled in her quest to remain a free and democratic nation — she is the only one — in the otherwise Islamist Middle East. Hamas and associated Islamic jihadists in Gaza have hindered her only slightly. She could overcome them in relatively short order were it not for unwanted, hypocritical and harmful interference from fantasy-based ideologues such as President Obama and other members of “the international community.” The worst hindrances have been due to those in the West who claim to view Islam as the religion of peace, not death. They ignore reality while continuing to demand that Israel forfeit her legitimate right to defend herself against the existential dangers posed by Islamic jihad. They live in decreasingly free and democratic societies and reject for Israel the freedoms they themselves have forfeited.

The public beheading of James Foley, an American citizen, by a British citizen affiliated with the Islamic State (“IS”) brought much public attention to and produced outrage at the IS. It is good to be outraged at the IS. But it is only part of the problem because the religious ideology and actions of the IS are based on, consistent with and required by Islam.

The ideology

Islamic ideology that eliminates freedom and demands the slaughter of “unbelievers” and apostates is summarized in the video presented above. Here are two rather more serious efforts: Nothing to do with Islam, Part one and Part two. Part one states,

This fundamental error continues today, as Muslim violence and anti-Semitism are explained by every factor instead of the essential one––the theology, jurisprudence, and history of Islam.

[S]uch fantasies endanger our attempts to destroy a committed enemy who is motivated by a storied history of conquest and domination, and inspired and justified by the most cherished beliefs of millions of their co-religionists. [Emphasis added.]

Part one explains these statements at great length with multiple specific references to passages from the Koran.

Part two states,

We in the West correctly find such views “extreme,” or “savage” and “barbaric,” but they are not “fringe” anomalies conjured out of textual misreadings by an extremist cult. They derive from the history and sacred texts of Islam, the clear meaning of which is illustrated on page after page of Muslim history. And they are being acted upon today across the Muslim world, as evidenced by the nearly 24,000 violent attacks perpetrated by Muslim terrorists since 9/11. Contrary to Obama, ISIL does speak for a religion. It’s called Islam. [Emphasis added.]

Groups like ISIL or al Qaeda do not embrace “extreme religious views,” or “twist the overall message of religious texts,” as the New York Post has it. They act on a venerable tradition within Islam, one based on writings some Muslims have construed differently because of inconsistencies among various texts. But that doesn’t change the fact that the jihadists have within the faith long-established precedents for their actions, a tradition with millions of Muslim adherents worldwide, including the leaders of Turkey and Qatar who finance the vicious terrorist group Hamas, and the Mullahcracy in Iran, the world’s foremost supporter of Islamic terrorism. [Emphasis added.]

Part two explains these statements at great length, again with multiple and specific references to passages from the Koran.

Islamic jihad continues to Metastasize

Breitbart map

Iraq — here’s a lengthy video from Vice News that provides useful summaries and insights.


By some estimates, the Islamic State group occupies up to 35 percent of Syria, or about a third of the country. It has consolidated its hold over an impressive stretch of territory from its westernmost end on the outskirts of the city of Aleppo, across northern Syria and most of the east. It spreads into most of the Sunni-dominated areas of northern and western Iraq, right up to the edges of Baghdad. That terrain includes the oil fields of Syria’s eastern Deir el-Zour province and parts of Hassakeh. It also includes parts of Aleppo province, including the major towns of Manbej and al-Bab, where the group’s black flags flutter over government buildings and main squares. Because it controls territory on both sides of the border, the group can move fighters, weapons and goods between Iraq and Syria with relative ease.

. . . .

The Islamic State’s declared capital is Raqqa, a city in northeastern Syria along the Euphrates River. With a population of 500,000, Raqqa is the group’s power base. Foreign fighters, some with their families, have flocked there from all over the world. Although it always has been a conservative city with strong tribal presence, Raqqa was once a diverse, thriving commercial center. Today, it is patrolled 24 hours a day by vice squads known as the Hisba — armed fighters in long robes who make sure their strict interpretation of Islam is observed. The militants have banned music and smoking, and have forced women to cover up. They have carried out beheadings in the main square for violators of Shariah, or Islamic law. People who were killed have had their bodies hung from crosses. The group recently imposed a curriculum in Raqqa schools, scrapping subjects such as philosophy and chemistry. [Emphasis added.]

Africa and Boko Haram –

As Boko Haram has continued to unleash its violence across northern Nigeria, the group seems to be gaining ground. Under the leadership of Abubakar Shekau, Boko Haram has evolved from a terrorist group into an insurgency that seeks to establish an Islamic state. And Boko Haram’s tactics have changed accordingly, from smash and dash attacks, killing thousands, into attempts to grab and hold territory. [Emphasis added.]

In a video obtained last weekend by Agence France Presse (AFP), Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau celebrated the group’s recent successes and gave a warning to those opposed to him and his ideology. Shekau is shown standing in front of three SUVs, wearing military fatigues with a Kalashnikov slung across his body, as he rants, in a mixture of Arabic and Hausa, to the camera. He holds a notebook in his left hand from which he reads.

After Shekau’s video was released, it was widely reported that he had declared the establishment of an Islamic caliphate covering significant parts of Nigeria. Shekau’s video came less than two months after Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, the head of the Islamic State, declared that he now rules as “Caliph Ibrahim” over large swaths of Iraq and Syria. With that in mind, Shekau’s appearance was widely interpreted as either an attempt to hitch his group to Baghdadi’s bandwagon, or to grab the spotlight for himself by capitalizing on caliphate fever.

But a careful analysis of Shekau’s recording shows that his words were likely misinterpreted. According to a translation obtained by The Long War Journal, Shekau highlights recent attacks perpetrated by his group throughout Nigeria. “Thanks be to God who gave victory to our brethren in Gwoza and made it a state among the Islamic states,” Shekau says. “Thanks be to God who brought grief to the unbelievers like Israel and Britain, or England, and their father America.” [Emphasis added.]

Aside from her problems with Hamas, an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza, Israel is now facing the IS in the Golan Heights.

Threats to the United States

At least one, probably two, and possibly three American citizens have died while fighting for Islamist jihadists.

In February it was estimated that at least 50 U.S. citizens are fighting in Syria, and are liable to bring terrorism back to their home country once the war is over. [Emphasis added.]

The State Department estimates there are about 12,000 foreign fighters from at least 50 countries in Syria.

A “hundred or so” Americans are now thought to be fighting on behalf of the IS in Syria. Approximately three hundred are now thought to be fighting on behalf of the Islamic State there and elsewhere, presumably including Iraq.

There have been “significant increases” in “terror chatter” as September 11th approaches. Yet the FBI recently identified no Islamist terror threats to the United States.

The FBI’s most recent [August 14, 2014] national threat assessment for domestic terrorism makes no reference to Islamist terror threats, despite last year’s Boston Marathon bombing and the 2009 Fort Hood shooting—both carried out by radical Muslim Americans.[Emphasis added.]

. . . .

Instead, the internal FBI intelligence report concluded in its 2013 assessment published this month that the threat to U.S. internal security from extremists is limited to attacks and activities by eight types of domestic extremist movements—none motivated by radical Islam. [Emphasis added.]

They include anti-government militia groups and white supremacy extremists, along with “sovereign citizen” nationalists, and anarchists. Other domestic threat groups outlined by the FBI assessment include violent animal rights and environmentalist extremists, black separatists, anti- and pro-abortion activists, and Puerto Rican nationalists.

. . . .

Former FBI Agent John Guandolo said he was not surprised the report did not include any reference to domestic-origin Islamic terror.

“It should not surprise anyone who follows the jihadi threats in the United States that the FBI would not even include ‘Islamic terrorism’ in its assessment of serious threats to the republic in an official report,” Guandolo said.

“Since 9/11, FBI leadership—as well as leaders from Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, CIA, Pentagon, and the National Security Council—relies on easily identifiable jihadis from the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas, al Qaeda and elsewhere to advise it on how to deal with ‘domestic extremism.’” [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

The domestic threat assessment is the latest example indicating the FBI has been forced by Obama administration policies from focusing on the domestic terror threat posed by radical Islamists. [Emphasis added.]

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R., Texas) said in a 2012 House floor speech that the FBI was ordered to purge references to Islam, jihad, and Muslims in its counterterrorism “lexicon” guidelines for its reports.

As a result, the FBI is hamstrung from understanding the threat of terrorism from groups like al Qaeda that have declared jihad, or holy war, on the Untied States, Gomert said.

Guandolo, the former FBI agent, said the vast majority of U.S. Islamic organizations were identified in recent U.S. terrorism trials as part of the Muslim Brotherhood, the parent group for the Palestinian terror group Hamas. Thus, these groups are aligned with the same objectives as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, al Qaeda, and others, he said. [Emphasis added.]

“Our FBI is not teaching their agents and analysts this information; they are not sharing it with local and state law enforcement officials; and they are not investigating and pursuing the very individuals and organizations which are supporting and training jihadis in America,” Guandolo said.

That apparently is not sufficient for our domestic Islamists, who are now demanding an overhaul of Federal, State and local police departments to banish any training materials offensive to Islamists.

Meanwhile Britain has raised the threat level to “severe,” the second highest level meaning that an attack is “highly likely.”

British Prime Minister David Cameron raised Friday the nation’s terrorism threat level to “severe,” saying bluntly that “poisonous” Islamic extremism is causing widespread problems that are spreading from the Middle East to other parts of the world.

. . . .

“I believe we will be fighting for years, and perhaps decades,” Mr. Cameron said, adding that the U.K. has already taken many actions, such as “legislating so that we can prosecute people on all aspects of terrorism.”

Mr. Cameron estimated about 500 people have traveled to the Middle East for terrorism training and to join the Islamic State.

He dismissed the theory that poverty fosters terrorism.

“The [current] terrorist threat was not created by the Iraq War … it existed even before the horrific attacks on 9/11,” he said. “It cannot be solved by addressing poverty, or dictatorships or instability in the region. The root cause is quite clear: a poisonous ideology of Islamic extremism that is condemned by all … [and that will] force people to live in a Medieval state” that includes beheadings, the enslavement of people, the rape of women.

. . . .

Mr. Cameron’s actions come as the U.S. response to the Islamic State remains in limbo. President Obama said Thursday the White House currently has no policy for dealing with the terrorist group.

According to the White House Press Secretary, the Obama Nation is “unlikely”

to raise its terrorist threat level — at least in the short-term — after the U.K. did so Friday in response to a threat from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

As noted in the video embedded below, illegal immigration by Islamists across our southern non-borders also presents substantial threats to our national security.

Finally, the situation seems to have come to the attention of the Feds. Inexcusably late but better than never.

Islamic terrorist groups are operating in the Mexican border city of Ciudad Juarez and planning to attack the United States with car bombs or other vehicle born improvised explosive devices (VBIED). High-level federal law enforcement, intelligence and other sources have confirmed to Judicial Watch that a warning bulletin for an imminent terrorist attack on the border has been issued.  Agents across a number of Homeland Security, Justice and Defense agencies have all been placed on alert and instructed to aggressively work all possible leads and sources concerning this imminent terrorist threat. [Emphasis added.]

Specifically, Judicial Watch sources reveal that the militant group Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) is confirmed to now be operating in Juarez, a famously crime-infested narcotics hotbed situated across from El Paso, Texas. Violent crimes are so rampant in Juarez that the U.S. State Department has issued a number of travel warnings for anyone planning to go there. The last one was issued just a few days ago. [Emphasis added.]

Intelligence officials have picked up radio talk and chatter indicating that the terrorist groups are going to “carry out an attack on the border,” according to one JW source.  “It’s coming very soon,” according to this high-level source, who clearly identified the groups planning the plots as “ISIS and Al Qaeda.” An attack is so imminent that the commanding general at Ft. Bliss, the U.S. Army post in El Paso, is being briefed, another source confirms. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did not respond to multiple inquiries from Judicial Watch, both telephonic and in writing, about this information. [Emphasis added.]

The disturbing inside intelligence comes on the heels of news reports revealing that U.S. intelligence has picked up increased chatter among Islamist terror networks approaching the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. While these terrorists reportedly plan their attack just outside the U.S., President Obama admits that “we don’t have a strategy yet” to combat ISIS. “I don’t want to put the cart before the horse,” the commander-in-chief said this week during a White House press briefing. “I think what I’ve seen in some of the news reports suggest that folks are getting a little further ahead of what we’re at than what we currently are.”

The administration has also covered up, or at the very least downplayed, a serious epidemic of crime along the Mexican border even as heavily armed drug cartels have taken over portions of the region. Judicial Watch has reported that the U.S. Border Patrol actually ordered officers to avoid the most crime-infested stretches because they’re “too dangerous” and patrolling them could result in an “international incident” of cross border shooting. In the meantime, who could forget the famous words of Obama’s first Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano; the southern border is “as secure as it has ever been.” [Emphasis added.]

What will President Obama say and do? Not much.

U.S. citizens returning from Iraq and Syria present a different problem.

Americans who have traveled to foreign countries to train and fight with terror groups such as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS or ISIL) are not being barred from freely returning to America, where they post a substantial terror threat, according to a leading member of Congress. [Emphasis added.]

U.S. intelligence agencies have been tracking Americans who travel abroad to join jihadist groups, but there is no law on the books restricting travel to countries posing a substantial terror threat, according to Rep. Frank Wolf (R., Va.). He is proposing a new law that would significantly restrict travel to Syria and other “nations of concern.”

Wolf, who originally introduced the bill earlier this year, is leading a new push to pass legislation that would imprison for up to 20 years Americans who travel to these countries following the reported deaths of at least two Americans who had travelled to Syria to fight alongside ISIL.

At least 300 Americans are believed to be fighting alongside ISIL, according to U.S. intelligence sources, who have reportedly expressed concern about these fighters returning to carry out terror attacks in America.

. . . .

Limited U.S. intelligence about their activities in the region effectively means our law enforcement can do nothing when they return home, despite concerns about their activities, contacts and training while in Syria,” Wolf writes. “I think most would agree we need to do more to prevent these terrorists from returning freely to the U.S.” [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

“The U.S. is not taking any substantial steps to discourage Americans from going over to fight—and these would-be fighters can see there is little price to pay for doing so,” the letter states. “This is an untenable situation that puts our country at greater risk of attack from a radicalized American who trains and fights with these groups and later returns home.”

The actions of Ohama’s America in response to the Islamist threat have been consistent with President Obama’s views and defenses of Islam


President Obama announced on August 28th that He does not yet have a strategy, telling the IS something it could easily have concluded from the actions and inactions of the Obama Nation. His strategy, such as it is, is concisely stated in His (claimed) autobiography, The Audacity of Hope.

Obama and ISIS

As our national security falls into a shambles, our military deterrent has all but vanished.


F-16s grounded. Blackhawks covered in foam. Just two Army brigades combat ready. Half the cruiser fleet rendered inoperable. New nukes delayed—for two years. The percentage of the economy devoted to defense at pre-9/11 levels. Bipartisan experts terrified of the consequences. America’s deterrent—our ability to discourage and respond to aggression—is gone. [Emphasis added.]

It was thrown away. First, President Obama cut defense massively, constraining the Pentagon and hollowing out the force. He was helped not only by Democrats in Congress but also by Republicans, who agreed to the budget sequester in 2011. Democrats want more money for social programs; Republicans want to cut the deficit. They are both guilty of short-term thinking.

The effects of defense cuts are felt not only in one budget. They are felt over time—in weapons not developed or devised, forces not raised, troops not adequately trained and equipped. The government cashes out a peace dividend just once. Later, we all pay. [Emphasis added.]

But don’t fret! President Obama’s charming ways, superior intellect and multicultural understanding of the beauties of Islam will force the bad guys to reform and become good little Obamabots.

President Obama, along with Secretary Kerry, really should go to Iraq, Syria and other IS strongholds and discuss things with them while enjoying rounds of golf and listening to Secretary Kerry’s sailing fantasies.

What would Winston Churchill do?

That’s an interesting question, helpful answers to which can be found in The Gathering Storm. Answers to the question are, unfortunately, not relevant because Churchill is dead and there is no one living who even approaches him in prescience, resolve and ability to do what needs to be done.


An article by Michael Leeden at PJ Media titled Latest Big Lie: ‘We Have No Strategy’ opines,

They DO have a strategy, but they prefer to appear indecisive.  That’s because the strategy would likely provoke even greater criticism than the false confession of endless dithering. [Emphasis added.]

The actual strategy is detente first, and then a full alliance with Iran throughout the Middle East and North Africa.  It has been on display since before the beginning of the Obama administration.  During his first presidential campaign in 2008, Mr. Obama used a secret back channel to Tehran to assure the mullahs that he was a friend of the Islamic Republic, and that they would be very happy with his policies.  The secret channel was Ambassador William G. Miller, who served in Iran during the shah’s rule, as chief of staff for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and as ambassador to Ukraine.  Ambassador Miller has confirmed to me his conversations with Iranian leaders during the 2008 campaign.

Ever since, President Obama’s quest for an alliance with Iran has been conducted through at least four channels:  Iraq, Switzerland (the official U.S. representative to Tehran), Oman and a variety of American intermediaries, the most notable of whom is probably Valerie Jarrett, his closest adviser.  In recent months, Middle Eastern leaders reported personal visits from Ms. Jarrett, who briefed them on her efforts to manage the Iranian relationship.  This was confirmed to me by a former high-ranking American official who says he was so informed by several Middle Eastern leaders. [Emphasis added.]

The central theme in Obama’s outreach to Iran is his conviction that the United States has historically played a wicked role in the Middle East, and that the best things he can do for that part of the world is to limit and withdraw American military might, and empower our self-declared enemies, whose hostility to traditional American policies he largely shares. [Emphasis added.]

As to Islamists at our southern border, Bryan Preston at PJ Tatler wrote,

The Texas-Mexico border has been overrun with thousands of illegal aliens, mostly from Central America, over the past several months. Texas Gov. Rick Perry has called for the Obama administration to provide more border security. Instead, President Obama is threatening to grant amnesty to about 5 million illegal aliens who are already in the US, a move that is sure to attract even more to cross illegally. If children can cross, so can others.

There have been rumors and suggestions in the past that Islamic terrorist group Hizballah is operating in the border region over the past several years. Hizballah is confirmed to have operations in South America, in the tri-border region of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay.

A former deputy sheriff in the Hidalgo County Sheriff’s Department told me in 2012 that captured Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan, where he served in the United States Army, had confessed that they were training operatives from drug cartels in Mexico.

UPDATE, August 30th

An article at PJ Media by David P. Goldman is titled The Trouble Is that Obama DOES Have a Strategy. Mr. Goldman observes, correctly, that

Obama’s “we-don’t-have-a-strategy” gaffe was so egregious as to distract attention from the fact that he does indeed have a strategy, which has blown up in his face. His strategy is accommodation with Iran at all costs. As I wrote earlier this month, our ISIS problem derives from our Iran problem: Bashar Assad’s ethnic cleansing, which has displaced 4 million Syrians internally and driven 3 million out of the country, was possible because of Iranian backing. The refugee flood in Iraq and Syria gives ISIS an unlimited pool of recruits. Iraqi Sunni support for ISIS, including the participation of some of Saddam Hussein’s best officers, is a response to Iran’s de facto takeover of Iraq.  [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

t may be entirely academic to argue that America should bomb not only ISIS, but also Iran’s nuclear facilities and the bases of its Revolutionary Guards. No Republican candidate I know is willing to argue this in advance of elections. Nonetheless, I repeat what I wrote Aug. 12: “The region’s security will hinge on the ultimate reckoning with Iran.”

President Obama, of course, won’t go after Iran with anything more than ineffective sanctions imposed by the “international community.” He still wants to persuade Iran to end its quest for nukes or at least to find ways to contain them once it gets (or keeps) them. Perhaps He also wants to contain the IS. It’s all folly and therefore consistent with His foreign “policies.”


For an excellent and frightening analysis of the spread of Islamist indoctrination in American schools, public and charter, see Andrew C. McCarthy’s PJ Media article titled The Islamic-Supremacist Enclave in Minnesota. Here’s an excerpt:

There are several news stories making the rounds today expressing great surprise that young Muslim men who reside in Minnesota – particularly those having ties to the state’s substantial Somali community – are fighting for the Islamic State terrorist organization (aka “ISIS” or “ISIL”). Two Minnesota Muslims have reportedly been killed. What surprises me is that anyone is surprised.

. . . .

In the classroom, Islamicization is seeping into the learning process as well—and not only in Minnesota. The American Textbook Council (ATC) has released a jaw-dropping study called “Islam in the Classroom.” (See Gilbert T. Sewall, Director of the American Textbook Council, “Textbook Lies about Islam” and five-part series “Islam in the Classroom: What the Textbooks Tell Us”, available at Family Security Matters, here.) History and “social studies” texts routinely indoctrinate children of middle and high school age that the prophet of Islam was a trader who “taught equality” and was animated by the desire to “help the poor.” The texts “feature manifold contributions of Islam to the arts and science”—including “textiles, calligraphy, design, books, city building, architecture, mathematics, medicine, polo, and chess.” Students are informed that music, and particularly singing, was “an essential part of Muslim Spain’s musical culture”—which is said to have “undoubtedly influenced later musical forms in Europe and North Africa” . . . though the text in question later admits that this music is “lost,” so just how much “undoubted influence” it actually had can only be imagined.

The concept of jihad is whitewashed in a way that would surely bring an envious smile to government experts. Gone is the once straightforward recitation that Islam spread by the sword. Now, as the pages turn, Islam “moves peacefully with traders.” It is “brought” to seemingly willing populations and spontaneously “spreads” throughout the Middle East to people who simply “become” Muslims.  A McDougall Littell volume explains, “There was much blending of cultures under Muslim rule. Over time, many peoples in Muslim-ruled territories converted to Islam. They were attracted by Islam’s message of equality and hope for salvation.” Islamic tolerance is a leitmotif. Students are informed, for example, that “[a]nother factor in helping the Arabs [in the “spread of Islam”] was their tolerance for other religions.” As the study summarizes, “Once non-Arabs have been conquered, students learn, those societies and civilizations with non-Islamic systems of belief live in a wonderland of interreligious cooperation.” A teacher’s edition of the McDougal Littell text poses the “Essential Question”:

Q:  How did the caliphs who expanded the Muslim empire treat those the conquered?

A:  They treated them with tolerance.


Q: Why were the caliphs tolerant of the people they conquered?

A:  Because the Qur’an did not allow Muslims to force people to convert to Islam.

Islam’s legacy of dhimmitude and enslavement is assiduously suppressed, as is its official sanction of booty-taking

Posted in Obama, Freedom, Israel, Iran, Christians, Religion, Ideology, Korans, Political Correctness, Illegal immigration, U.S. Military, Nigeria, Egypt, Muslim Brotherhood, al Qaeda, Department of Defense, Bill Whittle, Charles Hagel, Unicorns, Middle East, Islamists, Obama's America, Christianophobia, Churchill, Peace in our time, Antisemitism, IDF, Hamas, Fantasy, Reality, Foreign policy, Islamic Jihad, Gaza, Department of State, Genocide, Iraq, Islamic State, Obama Nation, Allah, Leftists, Sharia law | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

President Obama, not the Islamic State, is a junior varsity player or worse

Has President Obama finally awakened to reality,
or does He remain lost in a dense fog? 


According to Secretary Hagel, we must be concerned not only about what we know is out there, but also about “what could be out there and what could be coming. . . . We must prepare for everything.”

Shouldn’t we be more attentive to the likelihood of Islamic invasions across our southern border? It may happen and could already be happening. However, the Obama Administration seems unwilling even to consider the possibility, perhaps because President Obama views them as merely adherents to the religion of peace death and because He wants to keep our southern borders open to scam as many Hispanic votes for His party as He can.

For President Obama, everything depends on His perceptions of Islam and on the direction His unicorn weather vane tells Him the political winds are blowing.

Unicorn weathervane

Here’s a video of Judge Jeanine “ranting” about the murder of U.S. citizen James Foley by a British jihadist affiliated with the Islamic State (IS, ISIS or ISIL). Does President Obama understand the threat presented by Islam, not only to America but also to other already diminished free and democratic nations in the western world?


The focus of President Obama and the rest of leftist society on having even more multiculturalism than at present gives excessive latitude to jihadists, not only to change western civilization for the worse but also to engage in jihad at home and abroad — for example with IS in Iraq and elsewhere. According to British  in an article about the threat of multiculturalism,

It is now obvious to everyone that almost ten years after the London bombings, Britain has a serious and growing problem when it comes to young British Muslims becoming radicalised and turning to terror. What now needs to be reflected upon is why this should be the case – and what our policy makers must do about it.

Part of the problem is that many Muslims in Britain come from parts of the world like Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Horn of Africa, where political violence is endemic. Yet the biggest single trigger of jihadism here has been our adherence to ‘multiculturalism’ which has meant that we have for far too long allowed vile Islamist ideologies to be propagated under the cover of ‘free speech’ or ‘religious freedom’. [Emphasis added.]

See also, Just a Bit More Beheading than We are Used To:

[A]s I recall saying after the last decapitation performed by a British man, the unspoken British deal on multiculturalism appears to come to light at such moments. The deal — the acceptance and accommodation — appears to be that mass, uncontrolled immigration has brought us all sorts of benefits, including a greater variety of food and cheap labour. The downside is that we have to put up with, among other things, a bit more beheading than we have been used to. But much of the political class appears to be content with this bargain. I beg to differ. As horrors like those of this week mount, a great many more people might feel that way too. [Emphasis added.]

In the United States, the First Amendment to the Constitution affirms our rights to freedom of speech, the press, religion and assembly. It does not guarantee any “right” to murder, to engage in other forms of violence or to incite to murder or to other forms of violence. Taking proper measures to stop domestic devotees of the religion of peace death from murdering and inciting to violence would in no way deprive them of their First Amendment or other constitutional rights.

Our domestic criminal justice system is not suitable for jihadists who acted abroad

How about the Obama Administration’s focus on bringing jihadists acting abroad “to justice” via our domestic criminal justice system? Andrew C. McCarthy, in a National Review article titled Obama’s America Is September 10th America, wrote:

Our barbaric jihadist enemies – the ones President Obama repeatedly assured us he had “decimated” and put on “the path to defeat” – are now stronger than ever. Not stronger than they have been in years, or decades – stronger than ever. They have seized a country-size swath of territory (and growing). They have just beheaded an American journalist – which is the sort of thing they do as a matter of routine but has obviously, and finally, gotten our attention. [Emphasis added.]

Not to worry, though: The Obama Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation. I’m sure ISIS is quaking.

The Obama administration has spent six years miniaturizing the global jihad as a series of non-ideological, unconnected groups of “violent extremists,” pursuing parochial political objectives through acts of “workplace violence.” The enemy kills our ambassador to Libya, a palpable act of war, and the administration pretends it’s about a video. The enemy decapitates an American because he’s an American, and the administration announces the opening of a criminal investigation. The enemy bombs and beheads, we subpoena and indict. [Emphasis added.]

Mr. McCarthy had also opined in 2008 that then candidate Obama’s penchant for using our criminal justice system against jihadists had been “an abysmal failure.” He then observed,

When an elitist lawyer like Obama claims the criminal-justice system “works” against terrorists, he means it satisfies his top concern: due process [for the terrorists.]. And on that score, he’s quite right: We’ve shown we can conduct trials that are fair to the terrorists. After all, we give them lawyers paid for by the taxpayers whom they are trying to kill, mounds of our intelligence in discovery, and years upon years of pretrial proceedings, trials, appeals, and habeas corpus.

As a national-security strategy, however, and as a means of carrying out our government’s first responsibility to protect the American people, heavy reliance on criminal justice is an abysmal failure. [Emphasis added.]

In his current article, Mr. McCarthy notes:

Admittedly, that was before Obama empowered the virulently anti-American Muslim Brotherhood; made Islamic supremacists key administration advisors; blinded our national security agents by purging Islamic-supremacist ideology from training materials; colluded with Islamic-supremacist countries to restrict American free speech rights; tried to give civilian trials to enemy-combatant terrorists responsible for mass-murdering Americans; imported enemy-combatant jihadists for civilian trials despite congressional proscriptions; waged an unauthorized war in Libya that enabled our enemies to kill American officials and besiege North Africa and the Middle  East; negotiated with Iran-backed terrorists in trading jihadist leaders for the remains of British casualties; negotiated with Taliban terrorists in trading jihadist commanders for a deserter; assured Iran’s acquisition of nuclear arms; issued visas to terrorist operatives for consultations on American foreign policy; sided with Hamas during its latest war of aggression against Israel; and declined to acknowledge that the jihadist mass-murder of 13 American soldiers at Fort Hood was a terrorist attack. [Emphasis added.]

Yet Obama is currently serving His second term as “our” President.

President Obama — Defender of the faith

Like Hezbollah, Hamas, al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad and all the rest, the Islamic State promotes the imposition of Sharia law in the name of Islam. They all understand themselves to be Muslims acting on behalf of the faith. Yet Obama makes a special point of standing up for the good name of Islam, such as it is. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

Let’s be clear about ISIL. They have rampaged across cities and villages — killing innocent, unarmed civilians in cowardly acts of violence. They abduct women and children, and subject them to torture and rape and slavery. They have murdered Muslims — both Sunni and Shia — by the thousands. They target Christians and religious minorities, driving them from their homes, murdering them when they can for no other reason than they practice a different religion. They declared their ambition to commit genocide against an ancient people.

So ISIL speaks for no religion. [Emphasis added.]

Although Hitler spoke for Nazism, the IS does not speak for Islam?

According to State Department official Robert Jackson and New Hampshire Democrat Senator Shaheen back in May of 2014, Boko Haram is not Islamic either, because it’s evil.

Why do President Obama (and His friends) say such things?

The President sought to reinforce the notion that, because ISIL’s “victims are overwhelmingly Muslim,” the group’s terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. In fact, practically from Islam’s inception, innumerable Muslims have been massacred by their co-religionists over such matters as Sunni-Shia differences concerning fine points of theology or insufficient conformity with shariah. [Emphasis added.]

Mr. Obama also asserted that the Islamic State’s “ideology is bankrupt.” Calling that ideology bankrupt at a moment when it is palpably on the march from North and sub-Saharan Africa to the Far East and Latin America bespeaks a contempt for the intelligence of the American people. It is approximately as delusional and misleading as Obama’s previous, electioneering claim that one of shariah’s other jihadist franchises, al Qaeda, is “on the path to defeat.” [Emphasis added.]

In short, President Obama’s comments marking the decapitation of James Foley are but the latest in a series of instances of national security fraud on his part. Intentional or not, they have the effect of engendering a false sense of security at home, even as they embolden our jihadist and other enemies – who are ever-alert to weakness, lack of seriousness, or irresolution on America’s part. [Emphasis added.]

A particularly unsettling example of those qualities was evident in the President’s closing assurance that “we will be vigilant… and relentless” in protecting the American people. Actually, at the moment he is being clueless, disingenuous, and ineffectual in doing so. And that puts us all at risk.

According to The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, the IS has expanded by “at least 6,300 jihadists in the past month, the fastest expansion of the organization to date.” [Emphasis added.] See also ‘Twice as Many’ British Muslims Fighting for ISIS Than in UK Armed Forces. These factors suggest the opposite of ideological “bankruptcy,” except to the delusional.

Are President Obama’s concerns that the IS “victims are overwhelmingly Muslim” at or at least close to the center of His problem with IS?


Are the victims of the IS in some undefined (and probably undefinable) way different from those of all other Islamic jihadist organizations? Or is President Obama “confused” about Islam? To conclude that He is merely confused would give Him an undeserved benefit of the doubt.

The Islamists in the following video do not seem to be confused.

Here are a link to and excerpt from an article by Andrew Bostom in which that video appears:

The Luton Muslims “Khaybar chant” in the embedded video derives, as examples, from two of the canonical hadith collections (words and deeds of Muhammad as recorded by his devout, early followers), and the first and most authoritative Muslim biography of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq. These contemporary Luton Muslims are threatening Jews, now, and in general, with the same violence Muhammad and his prototype Muslim jihadist army inflicted upon the Jews of Khaybar. [Emphasis added.]

Hamas, et al, are IS wannabes.

According to Alan M. DershowitzISIS is to America as Hamas is to Israel. Yet President Obama stated,

“There has to be a common effort to extract this cancer so it does not spread. There has to be a clear rejection of the kind of a nihilistic ideologies. One thing we can all agree on is group like (ISIS) has no place in the 21st century. Friends and allies around the world, we share a common security a set of values opposite of what we saw yesterday. We will continue to confront this hateful terrorism and replace it with a sense of hope and stability.” [Emphasis added.]

At the same time that President Obama has called for an all-out war against the “cancer” of ISIS, he has regarded Hamas as having an easily curable disease, urging Israel to accept that terrorist group, whose charter calls for Israel’s destruction, as part of a Palestinian unity government. I cannot imagine him urging Iraq, or any other Arab country, to accept ISIS as part of a unity government. [Emphasis added.]

Since the Islamic State has no “place in the 21st century,” why should other Islamist jihad organizations professing the same or comparable ideologies of death and destruction be deemed to have a legitimate place?

Why the double standard? [continuing from the post linked immediately above]

Is it the manner by which ISIS kills? Beheading is of course a visibly grotesque means of killing, but dead is dead and murder is murder. And it matters little to the victim’s family whether the death was caused by beheading, by hanging or by a bullet in the back of a head. Indeed most of ISIS’s victims have been shot rather than beheaded, while Hamas terrorists have slaughtered innocent babies in their beds, teenagers on the way home from school, women shopping, Jews praying and students eating pizza.

. . . .

Is it because ISIS has specifically threatened to bring its terrorism to American shores, while Hamas focuses its terrorism in Israel? The Hamas Charter does not limit its murderous intentions to one country. Like ISIS it calls for a worldwide “caliphate,” brought about by violent Jihad. [Emphasis added.]

Everything we rightly fear and despise from ISIS we should fear and despise from Hamas. Just as we would never grant legitimacy to ISIS, we should not grant legitimacy to Hamas—at the very least until it rescinds its charter and renounces violence. Unfortunately that is about as likely as America rescinding its constitution. Violence, anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism are the sine qua non of Hamas’ mission. [Emphasis added.]

Just as ISIS must be defeated militarily and destroyed as a terrorist army, so too must Hamas be responded to militarily and its rockets and tunnels destroyed.[Emphasis added.]

The twisted perceptions of United Nations Human Rights Wrongs commission differ little from those of the Obama Administration.


Of ceasefires and negotiations


President Obama has not yet suggested ceasefires and negotiations between the IS and Iraq leading to the formation of an IS – Iraq – Syria – al Qaeda unity government. Why has He not urged the “international community” to “give peace a chance” by doing so? It would be absurd even to suggest it, but that hasn’t stopped Him before.

Now that Israel appears finally to be on the path to winning the war in Gaza, President Obama’s Secretary of State may again be at least hinting that there should be more ceasefires in Gaza and more negotiations with Hamas, et al. Calling for that has become a reflex action against Israel.

The U.S. and Egypt sought Tuesday to find an end to two weeks of bloodshed in the Gaza Strip, and officials raised the possibility of restarting stalled peace talks between Israel and Palestinian authorities as a necessary step to avoid sustained violence. [Emphasis added.]

It’s unlikely that Washington is ready to wade back into the morass of peace negotiations that broke off last April after nearly nine months of shuttle diplomacy by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. But the new round of fighting between Israel and Hamas militants who control Gaza has reached the level of violence that U.S. officials warned last spring would happen without an enduring truce.

Kerry, meeting with Egypt’s president and other high-level officials, stopped short of advocating a new round of peace talks. Still, he said his discussions in Cairo were designed to “hopefully find not only a way to a cease-fire, but a way to deal with the underlying issues, which are very complicated.” [Emphasis added.]

Secretary Kerry may consider the “underlying issues . . . very complicated,” but they are not. Israel’s fight is for survival against very real dangers she faces now, as the sole free, democratic and existentially threatened nation in the Middle East. The dangers Israel currently faces at the hands of Hamas and its Islamist allies are far greater than the dangers which, Secretary Hagel quite reasonably argued, the United States may in the future face from the IS. Since even Obama’s America claims to feel duty-bound to act against the IS, why should Israel be required to consider herself bound to a lesser extent to defend against Hamas, et al? Merely in a doomed effort to gain the approval of “the international community?” She has already done too much of that, with no reward in sight.

Peace is good. In the proper circumstances, it can be reasonable and helpful to give it a chance. Israel has done that, repeatedly, and peace has not yet even approached, much less arrived. Peace cannot be achieved through ceasefires and negotiations when one side (Israel) gives to and then beyond the point at which it impairs her security. Having done so, she faces even more demands which, if granted, would lead to her destruction. In response, Hamas, et al, persistently refuse to budge at all in their quest for her destruction.

In such circumstances, full scale armed conflict is the only viable way to achieve anything better than the deadly Islamist version of “peace.” The Obama Administration does not accept that premise. Until it does, the problems now faced by Israel — and those likely soon to be faced by Obama’s America — will continue to worsen, perhaps irreparably.


An article by Richard Fernandez at PJ Media is titled Paradigms Lost. He contends,

In retrospect it was clear Obama didn’t know the true state of affairs. He didn’t even suspect he had got it wrong; it was an “unknown unknown” to him. And not just in some insignificant detail but an error lurking in the facts which made up the very cornerstone of his strategic thinking.

Posted in al Qaeda, Ambassador Bolton, Antisemitism, Bill of Rights, Brutality, Charles Hagel, Christians, Commander in Chief, Constitution, Culture of violence, Death, Department of Defense, Egypt, Empathy, England, Foreign policy, Free Press, free speech, Freedom, Freedom of religion, Gaza, Genocide, Hamas, Hatred, Hispanic, Ideology, IDF, Illegal immigration, Iran, Iraq, Islamic Caliphate, Islamic Jihad, Islamic State, Islamists, Israel, Jews, John Kerry, Korans, Leftists, Major Hasan, Middle East, Military, Murder, Muslim Brotherhood, Muslims, Netanyahu, Obama, Obama Nation, Obama's America, Palestinian Authority, Palestinian heroes, Peace in our time, Peace process, Reality, Religion, Shari law, Turkey, Unicorns, United Nations | Tagged , , , , , , , | 10 Comments

Islamic slaughter and displacement of “non-believers” continues

But the “free world” continues to focus on
Israel’s “genocide” against “Palestinians” rather than on
the Islamist terror groups aligned against her.

If the Obama Nation is serious about combating the Islamic State (IS), perhaps it should embed intelligence types with the Vice News teams to get better information on where its forces are located and what they are doing.

Does Obama’s American really want to prevent the IS’ creation of an Islamic caliphate? How about other Islamic terror organizations? Hamas?

As observed in an article titled Christians and Yazidis in Iraq – and a World’s Indifference,

For the United Nation’s (UN) and the international media, there is one standard for Palestinian people and refugees, and another for others. This can be deduced from the reaction to the plight of the Iraqi Christians and the Yazidis (a Kurdish ethno-religious group of people, concentrated primarily in the Nineveh Province in Northern Iraq, now occupied by the fanatical jihadists of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant [ISIL] now called the Islamic State – IS.)  The Yazidis practice a syncretic religion that fuses Shia and Sufi Islam along with indigenous regional folk traditions. They are considered infidels by the Sunni Muslim IS and the Gaza Palestinians. [Emphasis added.]

There are no protest marches in European capitals or American cities on behalf of the Christians and Yazidis of Iraq like those recently held in solidarity with Hamas in Gaza. Nor has there been sustained media coverage of Christian and Yazidi suffering, as was seen during the Gaza war about the Palestinians. [Emphasis added.]

At an August 12, 2014 press conference UN General Secretary Ban Ki-Moon bemoaned the situation of the Yazidis. “The plight of the Yazidis and others (meaning Christians) on Mount Sinjar is especially harrowing.” While devoting a few obligatory lines about the Yazidis in Iraq, Ban Ki-Moon failed to provide the “harrowing” dimensions of their tragedy, including the murder of 500 Yazidis by decapitation and live burials and the 300 Yazidi women who were kidnapped and forced into sex-slavery by the IS jihadists.

Ban Ki-Moon did, however, elaborate on the plight of the Palestinians in Gaza. He said, “According to preliminary information, nearly 2,000 Palestinians have been killed –almost 75 percent of them civilians, including 459 children…more than 300,000 people are still sheltering in UNRWA (United Nation Relief and Works Agency for Palestine) schools, government and private schools and other public facilities or with host families.  At least 100,000 people have had their homes destroyed or severely damaged. Most of Gaza’s households have little or no water supply. Hospitals meant to cope with disaster are themselves disaster zones. The new school year was scheduled to start in less than two weeks, but a great many of the buildings will not be ready or are totally unusable in their current state.”

. . . .

[W]hile it is regretful that Palestinian children might not be able to start school on time (courtesy of Hamas), Christian and Yazidi children in Iraq have no schools or hospitals to go to at all. At least 1 million Christians and 500,000 Yazidis had to abandon their homes and, with no shelter on the mountain, are completely exposed to the elements. The exact number of Christians and Yazidis killed by the Islamic State is hitherto unknown, albeit, a one day toll of murdered Christians stood at 1,700 in what amounts to a genocide. These numbers are likely to be far greater than the Palestinians killed in Gaza. Moreover, their deaths might bring to an end the existence of one of the oldest Christian (Assyrian) sects in the world.

Might the different identities of those allegedly responsible in Gaza — Israeli Jews — and those actually responsible in Iraq and Syria as well as in Gaza — Islamists — be a principal basis? How about the multitude of Islamic terror organizations beyond IS? Hamas uses methods similar to those of IS to indoctrinate its youth. Its use of human shields in Gaza has been quite productive of propaganda with which to indoctrinate its youth and with which to try to tarnish Israel. Hamas’ propaganda efforts seem to be meeting with substantial success.

Although Hamas is now principally dedicated to the elimination of Israel, it has other long-term objectives.

ISIS has no direct connections with Hamas. Indeed, ISIS is a globalized movement that lacks deep roots in any particular society and has no nationalist project.

In contrast, Hamas, as well as Hezbollah, are nationalist movements. What they do have in common, however, is the use of violence and intimidation to implement a reactionary version of Islam that persecutes women and other religions. [Emphasis added.]

Whether or not Hamas leaders are emboldened by ISIS’s victories in Iraq, the two terrorist organizations share many of the same objectives, such as the establishment of a Muslim caliphate that operates according to Shari’a (Islamic law). [Emphasis added.]

If the objective of the “World Community” — which Obama’s America tries to “lead” from behind through pious preachments and bungled efforts — is to avoid creation of an Islamic caliphate, why has the principal focus been on trying to prevent Israel from fighting Hamas and other jihadistists allied with it, which have done substantially more than merely threaten to destroy her? That accomplished, Hamas’ next step would be to join in the creation of an Islamic caliphate.

Perhaps we will learn more next month when President Obama chairs a UN Security Council meeting convened to discuss

the phenomenon of foreign fighters travelling to conflict zones and joining terrorist organizations, as seen in the surge in foreigners joining ranks with such groups as Jahbat al-Nusra in Syria,” Think Progress reported.

TP does not, however, mention the terror threat posed by the Islamic State in both Iraq and Syria, where a July estimate suggested over 10,000 Western fighters are training for and executing attacks. [Emphasis added.]

Perhaps Valerie Jarrett will give President Obama a full and complete briefing, consistent with her and His ideologies and their resultant preconceptions.

UPDATE, August 20, 2014

In an article at PJ Media by Andrew C. McCarthy titled Inside Hamas: How To Understand the Global Jihadist Threat, Mr. McCarthy observes,

In-depth reporting by the Wall Street Journal’s Nicholas Casey and Adam Entous takes us inside Gaza, into the minds, indoctrination and support system of Hamas. The report is here (but behind the paper’s subscriber wall).

It will be a tough one to refute for the willful blindness crowd – i.e., the bipartisan Beltway ruling class and its cooperative mainstream media – who insist that Islam is innately a religion of peace. The report illuminates the reality that Islamic study is the basic pathway to jihadist militancy and that, for members of Hamas, the jihad against Israel is not a parochial political affair but part and parcel of a global ideological movement that is very much driven by a perception of divine directive. [Emphasis added.]

To observe what Hamas members and their supporters believe, and to learn that even non-adherents of Hamas respect the organization’s tenets as an entirely legitimate construction of Islam, is to elucidate the stubborn stupidity of the claim that “true” Islam is unconnected to terrorism committed by Muslims – and that we should regard such Muslims as irrational “violent extremists” rather than jihadists.

. . . .

It is a global jihad. Like the Israelis, the United States and the West are up against an ideologically driven enemy that believes, based on Islamic teachings that are mainstream in the Middle East, it is under a command from Allah to conquer non-Muslims. Its jihadists are willing to die to carry out the mission – having been indoctrinated to believe that that death in the cause is better than life on earth. [Emphasis added.]

We will never design an effective global strategy to defeat the threat unless and until we finally open our eyes and understand it.


Posted in al Qaeda, Antisemitism, Christians, Culture of violence, Foreign policy, Freedom, Freedom of religion, Gaza, Genocide, Hamas, Hatred, Ideology, IDF, Iran, Iraq, Islamic Caliphate, Islamic Jihad, Islamic State, Islamists, Israel, Jews, Leftists, Media, Middle East, Military, Muslim Brotherhood, Muslims, Netanyahu, Obama, Obama Nation, Palestinian Authority, Palestinian heroes, Peace in our time, Peace process, Religion, Shari law | Tagged , , , , , , | 15 Comments

The Islamic State is winning

The threats posed by the Islamic State are palpable and growing.
While the Obama Nation and much of the West think short term and lead from behind, our enemies think long term and lead from the front.


The Long War Journal is run by Paul Hanusz and Bill Roggio. Thomas Joscelyn is the senior editor. The following video was posted at You Tube on August 18th and is of a recent lecture by Mr. Joscelyn presented at the Endowment for Middle East Truth.

Mr. Joscelyn compares the rise of initially unexceptional ideologues such as Hitler, Mao and Stalin to the rise of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and his Islamic State (IS). Will Baghadadi enjoy successes similar to those of Hitler, Mao and Stalin, will they be shorter-lived and less deadly or will they be longer lasting and even more deadly?

Islam has been the “I word” that shall not be mentioned negatively. However, the IS is beginning to give Islam a negative media connotation, and that is much resented by many Islamists — not because what Islam’s creature, the IS, has done is seen as evil, but due to the negative public relations impact it might have on the religion of peace death.

As Mr. Joscelyn argues, the IS is growing and presents substantial long term dangers to the United States and other nations around the world. Obama’s America — along with much of the rest of a decreasingly free world — is focused, to the extent focused at all, on short term objectives such as winning the next election. Baghadadi’s IS is intensely focused on long term objectives. The IS is indoctrinating young children, as well as those now capable of fighting their enemies, so that the movement can survive its current leaders. Unless and until our prevailing short term focus and media depictions of Islam change, we will continue to face serious threats, some in the near future and some involving greater danger later.

This video illustrates how the IS is trying to realize its long term objectives by indoctrinating youthful followers.

Obama and Iraq

Unfortunately, it’s not only Iraq.

Posted in al Qaeda, Allah, Appeasement, Brain washing, Christians, Cult of personality, Europe, European Union, Foreign policy, Freedom, Hamas, History, Hitler's Germany, Ideology, Iran, Iraq, Islamic Caliphate, Islamic State, Islamists, Jews, Khamenei, Media, Middle East, Military, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama, Obama Nation, Obama's America, Osama bin Laden, Peace in our time, Peace process, Political Correctness, Politics, Religion, Shari law, Stalin | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Few “moderate” Muslims oppose an Islamic Caliphate

Most who appear to be “moderate” approve of or refuse to acknowledge what their “extremist” brethren of the Islamic State are doing.

In this video, seven young British Muslims discuss their understandings of the meaning of an Islamic Caliphate and their views on the Islamic State. Five of them approve an Islamic Caliphate, as they understand it.

This article (hat tip to The Counter Jihad Report for the link) may provide a basis for understanding the different views articulated by the young Muslims who support their versions of an Islamic Caliphate: Defensive or offensive Jihad: History, exegesis vs. contemporary propagation.

The issue at stake is the deep gap between the horrific acts of terrorism coming from the World Jihad groups, and, at the same time, the propagation emanating from Islamists, Muslims and Westerners; firstly, that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, hijacked by extremists; secondly, that there is only one Jihād, the spiritual, that means to worship Allah; and thirdly that the Muslims are ordered to fight their enemies only defensively. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

The Arab-Islamic terrorist organization’s strategy against the Free World is comprised of two parallel but coordinated arms: Jihād – a holy war against the infidels, and Da`wah – the persuasive methods used to convince people to join Islam. Both arms are intended to achieve the same objectives, yet both are used at the same time by different activists and are aimed against different targets. However, between both, Da`wah is more dangerous to the Free World. Jihād appears 41 times in 18 Suwar (plural of Sûrah) in the Qur’ān, mostly coupled with fi-Sabīlillah (in the way of Allah; for the sake of Allah), which transforms it into a religious sanction. Da’wah is the Islamic concept of missionary activity, aimed at persuading all human beings to believe in Allâh. Da`wah is the moderate and graceful opening address used to approach non-believers and convince them to submit to Islam, and if it fails, it is the duty of Jihād to achieve the Islamic goals. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

All four Islamic Schools of Jurisprudence and most of Islamic exegetes agree that the aims of Jihad are to remove the infidel’s oppression and injustice, to eliminate the barriers to the spread of Allah’s truth, and, to establish Islamic justice universally. There are four different ways in which the believer may fulfill his obligations: a) by his heart; b) by his tongue; c) by his hands; d) by the sword. This demonstrates the close connection between Jihād and Da’wah, as well as the fact that they are aimed at establishing Allah’s rule on earth, until either the non-believers embrace Islam (as a result of Da’wah), or submit to Islamic rule and agree to pay the tax poll, the Jizyah; or be killed in the battleground (as a result of Jihad war). [Emphasis added.]

From the Islamic viewpoint, all wars in Islam are religious; the concept of “secular war” does not exist; and Jihād is the only just war known. So, even according to Islamic Jurisdiction, one can wage the most aggressive war using atrocious evil deeds and still see it as a defensive war. The Muslim legal theory states that Islam cannot exist in conjunction with idolatry. This is Shirk, meaning association of other gods and idols with Allah. According to a Hadīth related to Muhammad, he declared: “I am ordered to fight polytheists until they say there is no God but Allah.” Muslims are under the Qur’ān Commandments’ obligation to slay the idolaters. Hence, terrorizing Islamic enemies is Allah’s commandment. [Emphasis added.]

According to Majid Khadduri, Muslims view peace as a tactical means for achieving their strategic objective, by defeating the enemy. Peace constitutes a temporary break in the ongoing war against the enemy, until Islam controls the whole world. They might come to terms with the enemy, provided that they resume the Jihād after the expiration of the treaty. Defeated Muslims maintained that their battle with the enemy would resume, however long they had to wait for the second round. By their very nature, treaties must be of temporary duration, for the normal relations between Muslim and non-Muslim territories are not peaceful, but war-like. [Emphasis added.]

Khadduri states that Muhammad has set the classic example by concluding the Khudaybiyah Treaty, in 628 with the Meccans: a peace treaty with the enemy is a valid instrument. That is, if it serves Muslim interests. Muhammad and his successors always reserved their right to repudiate any treaty or arrangement which they considered as harmful to Islam. Muslim authorities might have come to terms with the enemy, provided it was only for a temporary period. In practice, however, Jihād underwent certain changes in its meaning to suit the changing circumstances of life. This change, did not imply an abandonment of the Jihād duty; it only meant the entry of the obligation into a period of suspension – it assumed a dormant status, from which the leader may revive it at any time he deems necessary. [Emphasis added.]

Assuming that the young people in the video — evidently long exposed to Western culture while immersed in Islamic culture — are representative of their peers, it is unfortunately their prevailing view that Islam will conquer the world, either by persuasion or the sword. If persuasion does not work, the sword will be used. Why not ask “moderate” Muslims of your acquaintance about their understandings of “jihad,” the Islamic State, other versions of an Islamic Caliphate and what fate they think they hold for themselves and for non-Muslims?

A candid expression of President Obama’s views would be even more interesting. He spent His early years in a Muslim environment and apparently continues to believe that Islam is the religion of peace.  Does His 2009 Cairo Address provide a candid expression of His views?

I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. [Emphasis added.]

How about His more recent, July 27, 2014 Eid greeting?

While Eid marks the completion of Ramadan, it also celebrates the common values that unite us in our humanity and reinforces the obligations that people of all faiths have to each other, especially those impacted by poverty, conflict, and disease. [Emphasis added.]

In the United States, Eid also reminds us of the many achievements and contributions of Muslim Americans to building the very fabric of our nation and strengthening the core of our democracy.  That is why we stand with people of all faiths, here at home and around the world, to protect and advance their rights to prosper, and we welcome their commitment to giving back to their communities. [Emphasis added.}

A July 22nd article in The Tehran Times (the voice of the Islamic Revolution) titled Muslim world must adopt proactive approach to international discourse on human rights seems to parallel President Obama’s views as He articulated them above:

On the occasion of [Islamic] Human Rights Day, the Muslim world should reflect on ways to improve the international discourse on human rights and to promote human rights based on the moral values of divine teachings. [Emphasis added.]

Undoubtedly, the immortal teachings of Islam concerning freedom, justice, peace, the fraternity and equality of all people, the universality and comprehensive nature of the Islamic laws on human rights and the prominent place they give to Man provide valuable sources for the Muslim world to make a substantial contribution to the global discourse of human rights. [Emphasis added.]

The West, which has reached an advanced stage in materialistic science, is still and shall remain in dire need of faith to support its civilization. Indeed, Islam has much to offer to Western societies currently dominated by the anarchic demands of endless “isms”, such as individualism, materialism, consumerism, and secularism. [Emphasis added.]

President Obama’s foreign policy (assuming that He has one, and I am concerned that He does) seems to be grounded in His views of Islam.

In the next video a Muslim from Canada, who was raised in the Muslim culture, explains why his brethren (with whom he disagrees) favor or are at best indifferent to the Islamic State. He also notes that leftists tend to support Islam and that Islamists use leftist narratives to reinforce and support their own views.

Until we in the West gain better understandings of the religion of peace death and the views of President Obama and His ilk concerning it, we will continue to be unwilling and unable to deal with it effectively. Even then, it will be extraordinarily difficult.



Islamic nations (other than The Islamic State) seem to be principally concerned that the Islamic State’s brutality tarnishes their own image, rather than about the realities of what IS is doing.

In the past, Muslim leaders have faced criticism from inside and outside the religion for being slow to condemn terrorism in the name of Islam. An editorial in the London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi last month called on moderate Muslims to denounce the actions of the group formerly known as ISIS, which has killed thousands and left an estimated 1.5 million people displaced in northern Iraq. [Emphasis added.]

“All we have to do to understand the high price that Muslims pay on all levels [for such actions] is to see how Westerners snatch up [such reports on] ISIS’s conquests, invasions and despicable actions, and share them on social media in order to tarnish the image of Islam,” the July 24 editorial read. “We haven’t heard one single voice in the camp of moderate Islam condemning taking women prisoner or expropriating peaceful citizens’ property and money for ISI in Mosul, or any who distanced themselves from the shocking fatwas that seem to be carefully formulated for [maximum] service to the enemy.” [Emphasis added.]

The actions of the extreme militants threatens “not only Christians or Iraq,” but serves as a warning about the potential elimination of the region’s ethnic and religious minorities, the editorial continued.

“Therefore, an Arab position that attempts to downplay the dangers of the cancerous spread of terrorist organizations in the region … in order to serve the political agendas will actually be an accessory to the crimes against humanity, and will morally legitimize criminals who have lost any vestige of their humanity,” it read.

The apparent absence of criticism of IS by “moderate” Muslims is consistent with the views expressed in the two videos provided above.


Are these guys nuts, mainstream Muslims, or both?


An article at PJ Media by Robert Spencer titled 5 Ways the Quran Explains Today’s Headlines explains the extent to which the brutality of the Islamic State — and Islam in general — is consistent with and commanded by the Quran. Here’s one example, but please read the other four.

The joy in beheading.

The world was shocked last week when Khaled Sharrouf, a Muslim from Australia who is now waging jihad in Syria, published on Twitter a photo of his seven-year-old son holding up a severed head. Sharrouf’s caption for the photo was, “That’s my boy.” Lost amid this outrage over this photo, however, was an awareness of how common this sort of thing has become. Numerous photos have been published recently of jihadis gleefully posing with severed heads. Not to be outdone, a Muslim from Britain, Abdel-Majed Abdel Bary, published a photo of himself holding up a severed head with the legend, “‘Chillin’ with my homie or what’s left of him.” [Emphasis added.]

Savagery? Absolutely. Extremism? Only if one is unaware of this Quranic directive: “When you meet the unbelievers, strike at their necks…” (47:4). [Emphasis added.]

If beheading is a divine command, why should it be carried out with revulsion or disgust – or anything at all except joy?



Posted in Antisemitism, Belief, Brain washing, Brutality, Cairo address, Christians, Empathy, England, Fantasy, Foreign policy, Formerly Great Britain, Freedom, Freedom of religion, Gaza, Genocide, Hamas, Hatred, History, Ideology, integration into society, Iran, Iraq, Islamic Caliphate, Islamic Jihad, Islamic State, Israel, Jews, Korans, Media, Middle East, Military, Muslim Brotherhood, Muslims, Netanyahu, Obama, Obama Eid greeting, Obama Nation, Obama's America, Peace in our time, Peace process, Political Correctness, Politics, Religion, Shari law, United States of Obama | Tagged , , , , , , | 8 Comments