Obama’s Disastrous Islamist Outreach

Posted by  in Front Page Magazine

Logo Muslim Brotherhood

For three years, Barack Obama’s engagement policy with Islamists, most notably in Iran, has proven dangerous. The Iranian regime exploited Obama’s show of weakness by moving ahead aggressively with its nuclear weapon program. Now the Obama administration is doubling down on its disastrous engagement policy. It is serving as the midwife to the takeover of Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood and of Afghanistan by the Taliban. And there is a distressing link between the two.

A front page article in the New York Times on January 5th reported what has been obvious since Obama took office. The administration has sought to “forge close ties” with the Muslim Brotherhood – “an organization once viewed as irreconcilably opposed to United States interests.”

Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who is chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and recently joined with the ambassador to Egypt, Anne W. Patterson, for a meeting with top leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood’s political party, compared the Obama administration’s outreach to President Ronald Reagan’s arms negotiations with the Soviet Union. “The United States needs to deal with the new reality,” Senator Kerry said. “And it needs to step up its game.”

That is a ridiculous analogy. Reagan negotiated with the Soviet Union, but never waivered from his belief that the Soviet Union was an evil empire whose ideology must be defeated.  The Obama administration’s outreach to the Muslim Brotherhood is based on its mistaken belief that it has reformed in a way that brings it much closer to the Western model of a pluralistic party committed to individual freedoms.

To the contrary, when push comes to shove, the Muslim Brotherhood’s dominance of the civil government in Egypt, by virtue of its parliamentary election victories, will mean the imposition of sharia law and jihad against infidels. Nothing the Obama administration is trying to do through its aggressive overtures, including recent high-level meetings with Muslim Brotherhood officials, will change that fact.  Jihad is embedded in its history, as evidenced by the violent Islamic jihadist organizations such as Hamas that it spawned. And let’s not forget that it was the Muslim Brotherhood that gave Osama bin Laden’s former deputy and current leader of al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, his start.

Jihad remains in the Muslim Brotherhood’s DNA. Its motto includes the words: “Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” The Brotherhood’s new offices are emblazoned with its emblem of crossed swords.

The Obama administration’s ostensible rationale for engaging with the Muslim Brotherhood is that it is simply bowing to political reality. Based on the results of Egyptian parliamentary elections so far, the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party looks set to play a dominant role in Egypt’s new parliament and in the civil government to which Obama administration officials are pressing Egypt’s military to hand over the reins of power. But, in fact, the Obama administration is not simply being reactive. It helped bring about what is now unfolding in Egypt by throwing Egyptian president Mubarak under the bus and lending its hand to legitimize the false image of the Muslim Brotherhood as some sort of alternative moderate advocate of peace, pluralistic democracy and freedom for all Egyptians.

At the same time, in order to find a face-saving way out of the quagmire in Afghanistan in which the Obama administration finds itself after escalating the war there while simultaneously announcing a timetable for withdrawal, the administration is pursuing talks with the Taliban. It is using an untrustworthy Muslim Brotherhood connection to do so.

According to a report appearing in the Indian newspaper Hindu, diplomatic sources have said that Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who is regarded as the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, has emerged as a key mediator in secret talks between the U.S. and the Taliban:

Mr. al-Qaradawi helped draw a road map for a deal between the Taliban and the United States, aimed at giving the superpower a face-saving political settlement ahead of its planned withdrawal from Afghanistan which is due to begin in 2014.

In return for the release of prisoners still held by the United States at Guantanamo Bay, the lifting of United Nations sanctions on its leadership and its recognition as a legitimate political group, the Taliban was expected to agree to sever its links to transnational organisations like al-Qaeda, end violence and eventually share power with the Afghan government.

But what can the Taliban negotiators really deliver, even if it were serious in wanting to reach a peaceful settlement? There is no indication that these negotiators are in a position to turn over the Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar and his inner circle, who harbored al Qaeda when the Taliban was in control of Afghanistan. Nor will they be able to diffuse the growing power of the new generation of Taliban commanders ideologically committed to al-Qaeda’s vision.

The Obama administration’s idea of negotiations is to consider releasing Taliban detainees who are likely to return to jihad against U.S. forces without even any commitment reported to date that the Taliban would return the U.S. soldier it kidnapped. The only concrete step the Taliban negotiators have reportedly agreed to undertake in the short term is to set up an office in Qatar for talks.

It’s bad enough that the Obama administration is even considering talks on such terms – a prescription for appeasement. The fact that the Obama administration is foolish enough to trust al-Qaradawi as an intermediary with the Taliban is mind-boggling. Have they not read what this jihadist has been preaching?

The Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual leader’s call for jihad extends not only to the conquest of Israel and the killing of Jews. It includes the conquest of Europe and beyond.

In 2003 al-Qaradawi issued a fatwa declaring that

Islam will return to Europe as a victorious conqueror after having been expelled twice. This time it will not be conquest by the sword, but by preaching and spreading [Islamic] ideology […] The future belongs to Islam […] The spread of Islam until it conquers the entire world and includes both East and West marks the beginning of the return of the Islamic Caliphate [.]

A 2009 State Department cable, published by WikiLeaks, quoted a sermon by al-Qaradawi in which he condemned Jews for spreading “corruption in the land” and called for “the revenge of Allah” upon them. And he didn’t spare the United States. He condemned the United States for acting “like a god in this world” and cautioned the U.S. and the West that “according to the law of Allah, they should collapse.”

Yet this is the man in whom the Obama administration places its trust to help mediate a peace with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Just as the Obama administration trusts al-Qaradawi, the spiritual guide for the Muslim Brotherhood, to help it escape the mess in Afghanistan, the Obama administration has come to believe in the good intentions of the Muslim Brotherhood itself in how it plans to govern in Egypt.

Interestingly, President Obama himself, during his 2011 Super Bowl Day interview with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, wanted viewers to know he was concerned “there are strains of their [Muslim Brotherhood] ideology that are anti-U.S.” But he dodged the question whether the Muslim Brotherhood represented a threat to the U.S., saying that they were only “one faction in Egypt” that lacked majority support.

Despite that brief glimmer of Super Bowl Day reality about the Muslim Brotherhood coming from Obama himself, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said just a few days before Obama’s interview that any new Egyptian government “has to include a whole host of important non-secular actors that give Egypt a strong chance to continue to be [a] stable and reliable partner,” a remark most likely directed at U.S. support for the inclusion of the Muslim Brotherhood in any future government.

In February 2011, U.S. director of National Intelligence James Clapper said during a House Intelligence Committee hearing that the Muslim Brotherhood “pursued social ends, a betterment of the political order in Egypt, et cetera….. There is no overarching agenda, particularly in pursuit of violence, at least internationally.” However, his characterization of the Brotherhood as “largely secular” went a bit too far, even for the Obama administration.

In June 2011, well before the recent parliamentary elections, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explained the Obama administration’s decision to ignore the “anti-U.S.” strains in the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology and engage them in concert with its policy to deal with “peaceful” organizations. She said that “We welcome, therefore, dialogue with those Muslim Brotherhood members who wish to talk with us.”

Now, with the election results pointing towards a possible Muslim Brotherhood majority in the parliament, the Obama administration is throwing caution to the winds and wholeheartedly embracing the Muslim Brotherhood – “anti-U.S. strains” and all. It is willing to accept at face value assurances by Muslim Brotherhood officials that its lawmakers will reach out across the Egyptian political spectrum in order to build a modern democracy committed to the individual freedoms of all Egyptians.

The Obama administration evidently swallows the propaganda put out by the Muslim Brotherhood for the benefit of gullible Western governments and opinion leaders or does not care one way or the other whether it is true. For example, the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party head, Mohamed Mursi, said that while his Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated party uses “Islam as the basis of our party which means that our general framework is Islamic sharia,” they “don’t issue religious rules in individual cases.” Mursi also said that “All political forces and intellectuals in Egypt, regardless of their political and religious allegiances, will take part in writing the constitution.”

These are comforting words to the Obama administration, reinforced further by the Muslim Brotherhood agreement to an 11-clause declaration of principles known as the “Al-Azhar Document around the future of Egypt.” Al-Azhar is Egypt’s 1,000-year-old seat of Islamic scholarship, which Obama referred to as the “beacon of Islamic learning” during the 2009 speech he delivered there to the Muslim world. Muslim Brotherhood members attended Obama’s speech, by the way, at the invitation of the Obama administration.

The Al-Azhar Document is intended to serve as a guiding framework for the constituent assembly that will be in charge of drafting Egypt’s new constitution. This document, which was read on national television on June 20, 2011 by Al-Azhar’s Grand Imam, Shaykh Ahmad al-Tayyib, purportedly commits Egypt’s intellectual, religious and civil political elite to establishing an open democratic society in Egypt that respects the right of “other divine religions’ followers to appeal to their religions in their personal issues.”

But there is a big catch. The Al-Azhar Document’s first clause stipulates that “the modern and democratic state” it has in mind would operate “in accordance with the true Islamic aspects.” It goes on to say that “Islamic jurisprudence is the main source for the legislation.”

True democracy, which respects the freedom of all its citizens, is inherently inconsistent with “Islamic jurisprudence” that is based on Islamist supremacy and sharia law. While the Al-Azhar Document pays lip service to granting some measure of freedom of expression, it does so only within the strict confines of Islamic principles and morals.

The Al-Azhar Document also envisions an expansive role for Al-Azhar itself. It is to be the institution Egyptians must refer to “in order to define the way in which the state relates to religion (taḥdīd ‘alāqat al-dawla bi’l-dīn) and to clarify the foundations of the correct siyāsa shar‘iyya that it is necessary to pursue.”

This will invest the unelected Al-Azhar Imam Shaykh Ahmad al-Tayyib with significant power, since his institution will be arbiter of “the true Islamic aspects” governing Egypt going forward. Secularist writer Salah Elissa argues that “if new laws need the consent of al-Azhar, then that immediately means we are in a religious (not civil) state.” The power of the Muslim Brotherhood’s political party in the new parliament will help ensure that al-Azhar’s decisions do not stray too far from the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamist agenda.

Where does al-Azhar Imam Tayyib stand on core democratic freedoms such as freedom of expression?  As one indication, he praised Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s landmark fatwa banning insults to early historical Islamic figures, particularly the first two Muslim caliphs and A’isha, child-wife of Prophet Muhammad.

Indeed, Tayyib admires the Iranian regime and its terrorist proxy Hezbollah. “I hope relations between Iran and the Arab countries will improve, and the good neighbor policy as well as brotherly ties on the one hand and the fight against the common threat against Muslim nations on the other hand will improve these relations,” al-Tayyib said after meeting with Iranian and Hezbollah officials last July.

The Muslim Brotherhood leadership agrees with Tayyib. Kamal al-Halbavi, a senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood, expressed gratitude to the Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei for his support of the Egyptian revolution and said he hoped that Egypt would have a “good government, like the Iranian government, and a good president like Mr. Ahmadinejad, who is very brave.”

The Obama administration is trying to deceive the American people into thinking that Islamism – whether the Taliban or Muslim Brotherhood flavor – is anything other than our ideological enemy. The administration may not be able to stop either the Taliban or the Muslim Brotherhood from eventually taking control of Afghanistan and Egypt, respectively. But actively helping them along, as the administration is doing, recklessly jeopardizes the security of the American people and the cause of freedom everywhere.

Fact-checking the 2012 State of the Union speech

Posted by  via The Washington Post

State of the Union address is often difficult to fact-check, no matter who is president. The speech is a product of many hands and is carefully vetted, so major errors of fact are so relatively rare that they sometimes can become big news (think of George W. Bush’s “sixteen little words” about Iraq seeking uranium in Niger).  At the same time, State of the Union addresses are very political speeches, an argument for the president’s policies, so context (or the perspective of opponents) is often missing.
Here is a guide through some of President Obama’s more fact-challenged claims, in the order in which he made them. As is our practice with live events, we do not award Pinocchio rankings, which are reserved for complete columns.

“For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq. For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country. Most of al Qaeda’s top lieutenants have been defeated. The Taliban’s momentum has been broken, and some troops in Afghanistan have begun to come home.”

The killing of bin Laden, which Obama used to open and close his speech, is an achievement that few partisans would quibble with. But the story about Iraq and Afghanistan is much more muddled.Yes, U.S. troops have left Iraq, in part because the Obama administration was unwilling or unable — take your pick — to extend a security agreement with Iraq. Since the U.S. departure, Iraq has descended into violence as the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has targeted Sunni opposition figures. The country at times appears to teeter on the edge of a new outbreak of sectarian violence.
Meanwhile, the president’s claim that the Taliban’s “momentum has been broken” is a highly debatable claim. U.S. intelligence agencies, for instance, recently concluded in a secret assessment that the war in Afghanistan “is mired in stalemate” and that security gains from an increase in American troops “have been undercut by pervasive corruption, incompetent governance and Taliban fighters operating from neighboring Pakistan,” according to the Los Angeles Times. Other U.S. officials have dissented from the report’s conclusions, but the dispute is an indication of how fragile any momentum may be.

“In the six months before I took office, we lost nearly four million jobs. And we lost another four million before our policies were in full effect. Those are the facts. But so are these. In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than three million jobs. Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005. American manufacturers are hiring again, creating jobs for the first time since the late 1990s. Together, we’ve agreed to cut the deficit by more than $2 trillion. And we’ve put in place new rules to hold Wall Street accountable, so a crisis like that never happens again.”

Here, Obama tries to inoculate himself from the inevitable charge by the eventual GOP presidential nominee that he has the worst job-creation record of any president since World War II. (Let us stipulate that all of these job-creation claims are fairly bogus, given how every president is at the mercy of the business cycle, but it appears to be central to our politics.)

As Obama noted, some 4 million jobs were lost at the start of his administration, putting him in a deep hole if he wants to show positive job growth in his presidency. But the nearly $1 trillion stimulus was passed into law in February, and so the carefully phrased claim of “we lost another four million before our policies were in full effect” is a stretch.

That’s because it took a full nine months to run up 4 million in job losses, some eight months after the stimulus was passed into law — and some four months after the official end of the recession, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. (The 4 million in losses before Obama took office occurred in the previous nine months, not six months as the president stated.)

Trying to change the focus from his overall job-creation record, the president focuses on private-sector jobs created since the recession ended. Those numbers are largely right, but they are relatively anemic given the depths of the recession. (Note that he describes a loss of 8 million jobs and then mentions a gain of only three million.)

Obama does not mention that Republicans forced him to accept $2 trillion in budget cuts during the debt-ceiling impasse. And he says “we’ve put in place” new rules on Wall Street, glossing over the fact that it had little Republican support and the GOP candidates have all vowed to repeal the Dodd-Frank law.

“We will not go back to an economy weakened by outsourcing, bad debt, and phony financial profits. … It’s time to apply the same rules from top to bottom: No bailouts, no handouts and no copouts.”

These are clearly lines crafted by political operatives. Few economists would blame “outsourcing” for the economic crisis; it is also unclear how Obama has eliminated outsourcing during his presidency. “Bad debts” presumably would refer to irresponsible mortgage loans. “Phony financial profits” is also a bit puzzling. Perhaps it was not supposed to make sense.

The same goes for the other catch-phrase, uttered a bit later in the speech. The president, of course, supported massive bailouts before and after he took office, as will be demonstrated by the next quote.

“On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse. Some even said we should let it die. With a million jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen. In exchange for help, we demanded responsibility. We got workers and automakers to settle their differences. We got the industry to retool and restructure. Today, General Motors is back on top as the world’s number one automaker. Chrysler has grown faster in the U.S. than any major car company. Ford is investing billions in U.S. plants and factories. And together, the entire industry added nearly 160,000 jobs.”

Here the president appears to celebrate a bailout, which actually was started under his predecessor George W. Bush. The claim that “some” wanted the auto industry to die is a bit of a straw man, though Obama appears to be really aiming at Mitt Romney’s call at the time for the auto industry to go through a pre-packaged bankruptcy, which Democratic attack ads have turned into heartless-sounding proposal. (Ford, incidentally, did not accept a bailout.)

Some 200,000 auto workers were laid off during the recession, bringing the industry to a low of 550,000 workers; forecasts suggest it will climb back to the pre-recession level by 2015.

“A few weeks ago, the CEO of Master Lock told me that it now makes business sense for him to bring jobs back home. Today, for the first time in fifteen years, Master Lock’s unionized plant in Milwaukee is running at full capacity.”

This is true. An interesting article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel this month explains that costs in China have risen because of labor unrest, higher shipping rates — and weakening of the yuan against the dollar because of political pressure by the United States.

“Right now, American oil production is the highest that it’s been in eight years. That’s right — eight years. Not only that — last year, we relied less on foreign oil than in any of the past sixteen years.”

The first statement is a great statistic but not especially noteworthy because there has not been much change in the annual barrels produced in the United States since 2003; it essentially has been steady though it is slightly higher now than in previous years, according to the Energy Information Administration. Production is projected to increase in coming years.

The second claim made it into Obama’s first campaign ad, and as we have noted, it is lacking context. The Energy Department cited a host of reasons why foreign oil imports have declined, noting the main reason was “a significant contraction in consumption” because of the poor economy and changes in efficiency that began “two years before the 2008 crisis” — ie, before Obama took office.

“Take the money we’re no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home.”

This is fanciful budget math. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were funded with borrowed money, so what Obama is really asking for is an increase in domestic spending relative to the Pentagon. The United States is still running huge deficits, so none of this imagined savings would “pay down the debt” until the United States once again began running surpluses. Instead, his proposal would continue to add to the debt.

“Right now, because of loopholes and shelters in the tax code, a quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households.”

The president, making his case for higher taxes on the wealthy, framed this better than the line in his Kansas City speech that earned him Three Pinocchios, but he is still making a broad claim on a narrow set of facts.

Most wealthy people pay a higher tax rate than most less-wealthy Americans, but there are always going to be some exceptions. The Congressional Research Service found that among millionaires, the average tax rate is almost 30 percent. But some 94, 500 millionaires —one quarter — do face a tax rate that is lower than 10.4 million moderate-income tax payers.

“That’s why our health care law relies on a reformed private market, not a government program.”

Obama spent surprisingly little time in the speech defending his signature health care law, but he left out part of the story with this statement. About half of the 34 million people who will receive coverage under the new law will be placed on Medicaid, a federal-state government program for low-income Americans, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates. The rest of the newly insured would get coverage through private markets.

“Through the power of our diplomacy, a world that was once divided about how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program now stands as one.”

This is a more hopeful statement than the actual reality. The Obama administration has won U.N. approval for new sanctions, and just this week the European Union joined in an embargo of Iranian oil imports. But there are other key nations, in particular China, that have resisted a broad crackdown on trade with Tehran. There is also little evidence that the sanctions have had much effect in slowing Iranian nuclear ambitions.

“Our iron-clad commitment to Israel’s security has meant the closest military cooperation between our two countries in history.”

Obama has had tense relations with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, especially over peace talks with the Palestinians, but military cooperation has been one bright spot in the relationship. Still, the fact that the president could not even mention peace with the Palestinians in this speech suggests how much his dream of achieving a peace deal has faded.

“Anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn’t know what they’re talking about. That’s not the message we get from leaders around the world, all of whom are eager to work with us. That’s not how people feel from Tokyo to Berlin; from Cape Town to Rio; where opinions of America are higher than they’ve been in years.”

Obama’s self-congratulatory tone aside, the most striking thing about this list is that it does not include any cities in the Islamic world. Obama had made a high-profile speech in Cairo in 2009 designed to bolster the U.S. image; judging by recent polling, his effort has been a failure.

The Pew Research Center in May said that both the U.S. favorability rating and confidence in Obama had fallen sharply since 2009. In Turkey, a NATO ally, for instance, the confidence in Obama fell from 33 percent in 2009 to 11 percent in 2011; in Jordan, another key ally, the favorability rating for the United States fell from 25 percent in 2009 to 13 percent in 2011.

Numbers had even fallen in Indonesia, where Obama had lived for some years as a child. The survey said that Obama’s handling of the political change spawned by the Arab Spring was a key factor in the slumping numbers.

Allen West on the Marines Incident: ‘Unless You Have Been Shot at by the Taliban, Shut Your Mouth, War Is Hell’

By William R. Mann

A voice of sanity. Thank you, Congressman Allen West [LTC, USA, Retired].

May I suggest that Her Royal Highness HR Clinton and Professor Panetta take all of their liberal civilian buddies out to fight against the Taliban (once they have rid this country of these “monstrous” Marines])?  Come, teach all of us Active, Retired and Veteran military how to lead soldiers in combat, and what their punishments should be for what amounts to malicious mischief.

They understand NOTHING about the dynamics of complex emotional and psychological factors running through the minds of young soldiers and actions before, during and after a firefight. Acts of tasteless exuberance in thought word and deed afterwards is not at all uncommon.

Case Study Offered: I was once acquainted with a P-47 pilot [Bill H: If you are still out there… Godspeed] shot down over the hedgerows of Normandy. He was rescued after running through enemy fire and under the covering fire of a platoon of the 82d Airborne. He told me that when he crashed, he literally flipped a coin to determine in which direction to run as a hail of lead was flying through the air from both directions. After rescue,  he was issued a rifle and became an asset to that unit until he could be repatriated with the Army Air Corps folks. The 82d was on a mission of clearing a village of Nazi resistance and German soldiers.

The fighting was house to block to block and house to house until the village was pacified. Typically, if there was a suspect basement window, grenades were thrown in [basements offered much cover and concealment and were often used for CPs]. They did not stop forward momentum by negotiating with the enemy or observing polite behaviors. The method of entry in other buildings often involved kicking open doors and spraying the rooms, sight unseen, with automatic rifle fire until magazines were almost empty, before assessing initial results. Again, there were no invitations to tea as long as hostile fire was coming from locations in town. Bill, told me that on one occasion, Grandpa and Grandma were sitting in a room having tea when they were cut down by bullets. In other cases, already wounded Germans were finished off during the assault on a house.

“War is,” in General Sherman’s own words, “hell.” It is the devil’s playground. Bad things happen. Soldiers cuss like never before, they adopt comforting habits like snuff, or smokes. They become hardened; their hands are usually calloused and dirty; sometimes cracked and bleeding. Real sleep is a luxury. Each new mission or deployment might be their last. They become the honey badger just to stay alive.

Tell me, had there been a cameraman with Bill’s unit, would he have filmed this? If the cameraman had filmed this,  would he have sent it to Reuters [or whomever]? If Reuters had received it, would they have shown it? Likely not. It would have been heavily edited first.

Here we have 19/20-somethings fighting and seeing their buddies killed, or seeing videos of this enemy beheading Americans [reporters, contractors, Soldiers and Marines]. They urinated on the Taliban dead. This is regrettable. After a tough battle even a leader would be tempted to do such a thing. Big deal! Hell, Patton urinated into the Rhine River and it was captured on film! What is so honorable about this bestial enemy that brutalizes his own family with atrocity, and mutilates his women relatives? So, peeing on a corpse is an atrocity now? Horse-puckey! Give them a Battalion Level punishment. Do not ruin the rest of their lives!

As to Secretaries [who never served, never were warriors]: Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, and the rest,  I say talk is cheap. What hypocrites you are; you crooked politicians! You wear white-washed robes but you are rotten underneath. You talk about honor but you have no pedigree in the subject, and no moral righteousness for this trumped-up indignation. Go ahead, apologize to the Taliban, you idiots. Shame on you for continually persecuting and demoralizing your own warriors. Go ahead, finish off the world’s best enforcers and defenders of peace … you jerks. This is the real crime!

Here: See what war is really all about.

King David, using Goliath’s sword, cut off the head of Goliath after he had killed him, and God blessed King David and the Israelites. I say God Bless the US Armed Forces and the US Marines for taking the fight to the sworn Taliban enemies of civilization and the United States, and killing them!

William R. Mann, is a  retired Lt. Colonel, US Army. He is a now a political observer, analyst, activist and writer for  Conservative causes. He was educated at West Point [Bachelor of Science, 1971 ]and the Naval Postgraduate School [Masters, National Security Affairs, 1982].  He currently resides with his wife in Pensacola, Florida.  William can be reached at: letters@canadafreepress.com


Taliban to open Obama-sanctioned embassy in Qatar

via Creeping Sharia

 

 

Coat of arms of Qatar.
Image via Wikipedia

Another head shaker. David Reaboi writing at Big Peace: Full-Speed Ahead for Obama-Sanctioned ‘Taliban Embassy’ in Qatar.

On his Facebook page, Big Peace contributor Walid Phares brought my attention to a report in the Pakistani website The Nation that Hamad bin Jassem al-Thani, the premier of US ally Qatar, is prepared to open an embassy for the “Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan”– otherwise known as the Taliban. He said, “A solution in Afghanistan requires the participation of the Taliban in a way that must be decided by the Afghans.”

An office of the self-styled Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan would be the first internationally recognized representation for the Taliban since it was ousted from power by the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001…. Western diplomats have said it is hoped the opening of a Taliban office would push forward the prospect of talks intended to reconcile insurgents with the Afghan government and end the decade-long war.

This story was first reported around the time of the 9/11 anniversary and it’s not a surprise that Obama himself downplayed the news. As The Australian wrote in September:

THE US has given its blessing for the Taliban to be brought in from the cold with a critical step towards reconciliation as the world paused to mark the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

Washington has endorsed plans for the Islamist network to open political headquarters in the gulf state of Qatar by the end of the year. The move has been devised so the West can begin formal peace talks with the Taliban.

In addition to being home to In his post, Dr. Phares reminds us that Qatar is the address of al-Jazeera, the Muslim Brotherhood’s most influential figure, Yusef al-Qaradawi, his website OnIslam.net and his popular al-Jazeera tv show, “Shariah and Life”:

The Qatari regime, funding power behind al Jazeera, which expresses [the] Muslim Brotherhood agenda, is calling for the recognition of the Taliban and will be opening an embassy for the Taliban regime. It was reported that the US Administration has encouraged Qatar to engage in this direction. Note that the United States is at war with the Taliban and considers it as a terrorist organization. Taliban and their allies of al Qaeda have killed thousands of US civilians and military.”

Their strategy makes sense coupled with Obama negotiating with and paying off the Taliban and now Joe Biden saying the Taliban are not our enemy.

 

Is Obama Violating His Oath Of Office?

By Lt. Colonel James G. Zumwalt, USMC (ret):

In early November, Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez set out on a mission. Voicing his deep hatred for Barack Obama to friends in Idaho, Ortega embarked upon a mission to assassinate the President.  Those to whom Ortega had confided about his mission knew, armed with an assault rifle, he possessed the means to do so. Yet, by the time Ortega acted on his intentions on November 11, shooting at a White House window, not one witness had stepped forward to warn authorities about his mission.   While none had a legal obligation to do so, they clearly had a moral one. Only for want of a well conceived plan to isolate the President as a target, Ortega’s mission failed.

There is irony, however, in the inaction of those who failed to forewarn the President of a serious threat to his life and the inaction of a President to forewarn and protect us against a major threat to ours. Whereas the failure of those in the Ortega incident did not violate a legal obligation, we must ask whether Obama’s failure to do so does.

Just as Ortega openly declared his intentions to do violence to the President, so too has a group of Islalmist terrorists declared its intentions to destroy us. Just as Ortega armed himself with an assault rifle with which to carry out his declared intention, so too has this group sought to arm itself with a nuclear capability to carry out its declared intention. And, just as Ortega made good on his intention to undertake a violent act, this group has made clear it is preparing to do so.

It is ironic that, had the witnesses in the Ortega incident reported the wannabe assassin’s intentions, the Secret Service would have taken action to remove or otherwise isolate the threat from the President. Yet, the President has done nothing to forewarn Americans about this group’s positioning itself to act upon its promise to destroy us or to prevent these terrorists from so doing.

The President’s act of omission in failing to contain this Islamic extremist threat was accompanied by an act of commission for issuing national security guidelines that identify “terrorism” as a danger to America but refuse to link it in any way to extremist views of Islam. In delivering his first Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) to Congress last year, Obama—in an effort not to offend moderate Muslims—mandated no reference be made to “Islam,” “Islamic extremism,” or “jihad.”

While the QHSR does reference the terrorist group al-Qaeda by name, it avoids the nexus that the threat it poses to the US and its stated intention to destroy us stems from its adherence to extremist Islamic religious beliefs.  There is further irony in Obama’s decision to avoid references to Islam in his QHSR.

Prior to Obama taking office, President George Bush authorized the use of drones to target leaders of al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Under Obama, the use of drones has intensified, effectively eliminating dozens of high profile leaders from among these groups. Every drone assassination to date has targeted a terrorist leader sharing a common trait—a belief in Islamic extremism. Thus, while Obama recognizes the importance of eliminating Islamists via drone targeting, he fails to recognize of equal importance educating the American people via his national security guidelines as to the exact nature of the terrorist threat. Rather than link the threat to Muslims adhering to Islamic extremist beliefs, he chooses to avoid any reference to Islam.

Specifically naming al-Qaeda in his national security guidelines and then targeting its leaders for assassination suggests Obama believes, rightfully so, that all its members are Islamic extremists. But what those guidelines fail to recognize is that the reverse is not true—i.e., not all Islamic extremists are members of al-Qaeda. Although the Taliban is not mentioned in the guidelines, Obama has authorized targeting its leadership too as he recognizes that group’s tie to Islamic extremism. But both the Taliban and al-Qaeda are terrorist groups only representing Islam’s Sunni sect extremists. Meanwhile, the President does little, if anything, to educate Americans as to a far greater threat posed by Islam’s Shiite sect extremists. And, as that threat increases, he does nothing to defuse it.

The single greatest threat to America’s national security today is posed by a group of Islamic Shiite extremists, led by their Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and their non-cleric president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in Iran. These two men are on a mission to arm Iran with nuclear weapons. Both claim they have already been visited by the Mahdi—a religious figure who disappeared in the ninth century as a child, ascending into a state of occultation where he remains until conditions are right for his return to Earth. Upon his return, Mahdi supposedly will restore Islam’s greatness as non-Muslims subordinate themselves to the religion or die. And both men claim Mahdi’s return will come soon, during their lifetimes, possibly in 2012.

While uninformed non-Muslims might content themselves believing time will simply prove these two religious zealots wrong, time is exactly what the Iranian leaders are banking on to enable them to create the right conditions for Mahdi’s return.   However, while non-believers know Mahdi’s return will never occur, it is the conditions Iran’s two madmen seek to create for the rest of the world to usher in Mahdi’s return that should generate great concern for us.

Khamenei and Ahmadinejad believe the door for Mahdi’s return will only open once the world is immersed in global chaos. It does not take a rocket scientist to recognize this is why Tehran’s leaders seek to possess nuclear weapons. In their minds, use of those weapons will be the key to unlock the door. This game plan for Mahdi’s return has been set forth numerous times by Iran’s leadership. Not only does our President fail to heed Tehran’s message, he fails to warn the American people of an assassin who has us in the crosshairs of his nuclear “sights.”

While Obama’s actions of omission and commission have increased the threat posed by Tehran, last week the President added to the equation an act of submission.

In a rare example of bipartisan cooperation, the Senate last week passed a bill by a vote of 100 to 0 to impose the most stringent sanctions to date against Iran. The Senate, taking heed of a November 9, 2011 International Atomic Energy Agency report that Iran will, within a year, possess a nuclear weapon, sought to take action now to impose sanctions that would have a much harsher impact on Iran’s economy. The vote was an indictment by both political parties that Obama is a weak fish in stopping Iran’s nuclear arms program. Even our European allies favor an effort to impose tougher sanctions on Tehran. Yet, inexplicably, the President’s response to the Senate vote was simply to raise his objection to its passing the legislation.

And the President has gone even further in his effort not to interfere with Iran’s nuclear objectives. While Obama said on November 30 the US will not compromise on Israel’s security, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta delivered a speech three days later arguing against Israel attacking Iran. Thus the President, by his actions, not only demonstrates to Iran he will not take military action or impose stricter economic sanctions, but that he also will discourage Israel from taking action independently. Obama is telling Tehran he will accept a nuclear armed Iran.

There is an interesting difference between the oath Obama took when he was sworn in as President and the oath a military officer takes. Obama swore he would “to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Military officers are held to a higher standard swearing to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” ending with “So help me God.” The wiggle words “to the best of my ability” in the presidential oath would relieve Commander-in-Chief Obama of liability for naively and negligently choosing not to defend against an obvious Islamic extremist threat to our national security. Once Iran lets loose its nuclear fury, that will be the point at which Obama unleashes a US military force, led by officers sworn to the defense of our country, to do what he refused to do. But, by that time, millions will have died as a result of his naiveté.

 

Family Security Matters Contributing Editor Lt. Colonel James G. Zumwalt, USMC (ret) is a retired Marine infantry officer who served in the Vietnam War, the US invasion of Panama and the first Gulf war. He is the author of “Bare Feet, Iron Will–Stories from the Other Side of Vietnam’s Battlefields” and frequently writes on foreign policy and defense issues.