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.
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 Professor Anthony Glees 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.]
[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.]
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.
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.
“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.
CAIRO – 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.