02/16/15

“Defeat Jihad Summit” – Diana West Summary – Videos

Diana West
Hat Tip: Dick Manasseri

Editor’s Note – From the Center for Security Policy, headed by Frank Gaffney, the following summary identified what the Defeat Jihad Summit was designed to accomplish, this followed by notes taken by one attendee, Diana West:

Today, an extraordinary gathering of freedom-fighters in what might best be described as the War for the Free World convened in Washington, D.C.3348068130

Their purpose was to anticipate and rebut the thesis of President Obama’s “Countering Violent Extremism Summit” next week – namely, that the United States faces hostile forces whose identity, motivations and capabilities are defined by an opaque euphemism: violent extremism.

The “Defeat Jihad Summit” was sponsored by the Center for Security Policy and brought together present and former, domestic and foreign political leaders, senior military officers, national security professionals and other experts on Islamic supremacism and its guiding doctrine, shariah.

Please read the notes here and then go their site and view the videos of the speakers and more. Videos for Senator Ted Cruz. Governor Bobby Jindal, Speaker Newt Gingrich, General Jerry Boykin and a list of many others are on that link.

Notes from a Defeat Jihad Summit

By Diana West – “Death of the Grown-Up

Diana West

Earlier this week, I participated in the Center for Security Policy’s Defeat Jihad Summit.

I find that the several hours of speeches and discussion have distilled into some salient recollections and comments.

1) There remains a chasm between American “messaging” and that of some of our European friends who were invited to speak, including the Netherlands’ Geert Wilders, who contributed a taped message, and Lars Hedegaard, who addressed the conference via Skype from Denmark.

American participants in the main demand, even a little truculently, that we now, finally, break the bonds of “political correctness” and speak frankly about “radical Islam,” “Islamism,” “ideas of ISIS,” etc.

Wilders, whose Party for Freedom is No. 1 in the Dutch polls, and Dispatch International editor Hedegaard both speak, and have always spoken about “Islam” — pure and very simple.

Indeed, Wilders has encapsulated everything you need to know about Islam and the West thus: “The more Islam there is in a society, the less freedom there is.”

Not “Islamism.”

This difference is more than semantic. wilders

The primary mechanism of control that Islam exerts over people is Islamic slander law, Islamic blasphemy law. This is the institutional means by which Islam protects itself against criticism, even objective facts about Islam that might be construed critically.

The penalty is death. Not for nothing did Yusef Qaradawi state that Islam wouldn’t even exist without the death penalty for “apostasy.”

We have seen innumerable instances, particularly since the 1989 publication of Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses, where Muslims have executed, or tried to execute this death sentence even against non-Muslims, from Europe to Japan, in efforts to extend the rule of Islam.

When American lawmakers, generals and security experts omit “Islam” from their debates and war councils, focusing instead on what they have dubbed “radical Islam,” “Islamism” and the like, they are succombing to this same control mechanism.

They are protecting Islam. They are themselves sheltering Islam against the cold light of analysis. By extension, they are also preventing their own Western societies from devising means of defense against Islamization. They are accepting and carrying out what is probably the most important Islamic law.

There is concrete danger in this. Unless we can come to an understanding that it is the teachings of Islam — not the teachings of some peculiar strain called “Islamism,” or of an organization such as the Muslim Brotherhood or ISIS — that directly undermine our constitutional liberties, we cannnot protect our way of life from these teachings, whose popularity grows with the increasing Islamic demographic.

This is what the advanced Islamization of Europe shows us. A nominally sensible US immigration policy would immediately halt Islamic immigration to prevent a sharia-demographic from gaining more critical mass in the USA, democratically.

Then again, we don’t have a national border, much less a sensible immigration policy. That means many of these questions are moot.

2) Still, it bears noting: The Left has responded to the current cycle of Islamic jihad — a recurring blight on civilization, as Andrew Bostom’s Legacy of Jihad amply documents — by inventing a foe called “violent extremism.”

The Right, scoffing at this euphemism, “pinpoints” the threat of “radical Islamism.”Bostom

What is the difference? Ultimately, I see none. Both terms protect Islam.

Warning against the dangers of “radical Islam” implies that there exists some “normal Islam” that is completely compatible, perhaps even interchangeable, with Christianity and Judaism.

Indeed, this ongoing effort to normalize Islam is equally as dangerous as the institutional efforts that long ago “normalized” Communism.

This officially began when FDR “normalized” relations with the wholly abnormal Soviet regime in 1933, a morally odious event whose horrific repercussions are treated at length in American Betrayal.

Just as it required endless apologetics (lies) to maintain the fiction of “normal” Communism, so, too, does it require endless apologetics (lies) to maintain the fiction of “normal” or “moderate” Islam.

According to all of Islam’s authoritative texts, according to the example of Islam’s prophet, this “moderate” creed does not Islamically exist.

To turn the notion around, as Lars recently reminded me, when the brave and splendid ex-Muslim Wafa Sultan was asked several years ago to distinguish between “Islam” vs. “Islamism” at a Copenhagen conference, she brought the airy theory back to earth by asking: Based on your definition of Islamism, was Mohammed a Muslim or an “Islamist”?

3) This brings me to The Best Line of the summit, which was spoken by Nonie Darwish: “Islamism is Islam and Islam is Islamism.”

4) The Spirit of ’76 Award goes to retired Admiral James “Ace” Lyons who inquired of guest speaker and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich whether there was any movement in the Congress to censure Obama or initiate impeachment hearings. The consensus on this burning, patriotic question is, no, expediently speaking, there is not nor will there be such a movement.

As per the entire US elite’s corruption and complicity in Soviet crime outlined in American Betrayal, it seems we have arrived at the point where Obama’s political judge and jury — our elected representatives in the Congress — is surely complicit in his crimes against the Constitution, as well as with his identity fraud on the American people.

5) The Most Profound New Thought of the summit came from brave and splendid ex-Muslim Nonie Darwish (who, bonus, I met for the first time here).

Nonie conveyed her understanding, having grown up in Egypt the privileged daughter of an Egyptian shahid (martyr), that terrorism, the threat of terrorism is a feature of Islamic life at all levels: inside the family, in the public square, and everywhere in between.

I’m paraphrasing, but what came through her talk was the idea that Muslim “moderates” in Islamic society (which I am taking to mean human beings who do not have the seeds of violence within them) have come to take Islamic terrorism/violence/coercion as a given.

This means that they have come to accept such terrorism/violence/coercion as normal. Her great fear is that Americans, too, are coming to accept such Islamic violence as normal — that we, in a sense, are taking on the role of such Muslim moderates. This is, if it can be imagined, an even darker iteration of dhimmitude.

6) Speaking of ex-Muslims, I made a comment about the role of the apostate in the great ideological battles of our time. Today, it is the ex-Muslims who offer special insight into totalitarianism of the Islamic kind.

Many of my American colleagues, however, still prefer to lean on guidance from Muslim “moderates” — despite the fact, referenced above, that Islam’s own sacred texts, including the example of Islam’s prophet, support no such “moderation.”51yHDd+p4NL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_

As they wish, they may await, or even themselves lead an Islamic reformation, but this in no way protects free speech or preserves public safety in our country now — especially when there are indicators that an alarming level of support for curbing and even criminalizing free speech about Islam exists among American Muslims — punitive measures, again, that find support in Islam’s texts.

In the 20th-century-battle against totalitarian Communism, anti-Communists did not embrace “moderate Communists.” Rather, they embraced ex-Communists who understood the totalitarian teachings and practices of Communism in Moscow’s gangster-quest for global dominance — a “caliphate” a la Lenin & Marx.

It was mainly the Left and Center  — the anti-anti-Communist Left and Center — that made common cause with “moderate Communists,” i.e., Social Democrats, Communist apologists, also Soviet agents among others, engendering meaningless treaties, defeats and loss.

Even more pernicious, though, was the resulting “postmodern” rot across the political spectrum, which tells me, as I argue in American Betrayal, that the West lost the “struggle of ideas” in the “Cold War.”

This spectral shift is interesting in and of itself. I see its patterns repeat in the past decade of military disaster in which it was US military strategy to ignore the teachings of Islam and instead lean on perceived Muslim moderates, or just bank on a hoped-for emergence of Muslim moderation, in the Islamic nations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Terrible defeats ensued.

As former FBI special agent John Guandolo pointed out at the summit, we’ve tried this type of thing for 15 years and it doesn’t work.

Nor does it make sense — logically, doctrinally, strategically. But then neither does seizing on  “radical Islamism” and other terms of art that exclude and thus protect Islam.

The Moral of this summit: You can’t protect Islam and defeat jihad at the same time.

02/16/15

The Good Guys

Arlene from Israel

The good guys give hope and promise for the possibility of better days coming.

Many spirits were buoyed on Friday, when the news broke that Elie Wiesel had announced that he would be attending Netanyahu’s March 3rd address in Congress “on the catastrophic danger of a nuclear Iran.”

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, a close associate of Wiesel’s, announced that he would be placing full page ads in the NY Times and the Washington Post that would declare Wiesel’s intention of coming to Congress to hear Netanyahu, and would broadcast his invitation to Obama and others: “Will you join me in hearing the case for keeping weapons from those who preach death to Israel and America?”

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/191326#.VOC4opv9nIU

credit: failedmessiah

~~~~~~~~~~

All I am aware of at this point is that the NY Times ad did appear yesterday.  You can see it here (with my thanks to Cheryl L.):

http://thisworld.us/2015/02/13/nobelist-elie-wiesel-to-attend-netanyahu-speech/

~~~~~~~~~~

In a situation that has become shamefully politicized and partisan, Wiesel brings attention back to the real issue – the dangers of Iran.  Speaking as he has for decades on the horrors of the Holocaust, he is able to draw a direct line to what we face today.  And, very importantly, he does it with a stature that is non-partisan.

Do I imagine that Obama is going to rush to join Wiesel in Congress to hear Bibi?  Of course not.  But I do have hope that this public action will take some of the wind out of the the president’s political sails.  It is clear that Obama has been going on about “protocol” and “elections campaigns” in order to distract from his major concern: Netanyahu’s challenge to the deal with Iran that is currently in the works.  When it is pointed out by someone such as Wiesel that we are confronting a situation that is terrifying, hopefully it becomes just a tad more difficult for Obama to continue with the same obfuscation.

~~~~~~~~~~

Governor Mike Huckabee and his wife are in town now; they will be leading a mission of some 250 people – many coming for the first time – who will be touring the country to learn about Israel’s heritage.

This morning, Governor Huckabee held a press conference.  He has not yet announced that he will be running for president, but there is considerable reason to believe that this will be the case.  And I see this to the good.  As he addressed subjects of major concern for journalists today, he was very much on the mark:

We are, said the governor, in the midst of a crucial historical time, as we face the threat of radical Islam. This is a threat not just to Israel.  Israel is the canary in the coal mine, but is not Iran’s ultimate target – a nuclear Iran would be a huge threat to the US and other nations.

We are not looking at a personal conflict between Obama and Netanyahu, but rather at the question of whether we trust Iran.  The strategy of loosening sanctions is counterintuitive – there should be pressure put upon Iran now to bring it to the breaking point.

It is stupid to declare in advance what we are not going to do. Everything must be on the table. The government of Iran has no credibility – it’s like negotiating with a snake. America’s leading from behind has had disastrous consequences.

~~~~~~~~~~

Governor Huckabee absolutely believes Netanyahu should speak in Congress. Speeches of power can have a great impact.  And Netanyahu may be uniquely qualified to deliver that speech.

We should remain assured that there is strong Democratic support for Israel in Congress.  Much of the partisan tension we are seeing now is anti-Boehner not anti-Israel.

Credit: The Guardian

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please see here another very cogent argument regarding the need to counter Obama as vigorously as possible with regard to Iran. This article – “Worse Than No Strategy” – is written by Clifford May, president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (emphasis added):

“It seems like only yesterday that President Obama was being criticized for having no strategy to counter the jihadi threat…

“Since then, a different perception has been taking root: Mr. Obama does indeed have a strategy – a ‘secret strategy,’ one that is alarmingly misguided.

According to this theory, he believes that fighting terrorism requires accommodating the regime long recognized by the U.S. government as the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism: the Islamic Republic of Iran.

“He may also see the Islamic Republic not as a rival to the Islamic State but as a more moderate alternative — despite the fact that Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, has repeatedly declared hostility toward America the foundation of the Islamic revolution. The president appears to believe that Sunni jihadis can be countered by Shia jihadis…

“Michael Doran, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, has not just speculated about Mr. Obama’s ‘secret strategy.’ He has painstakingly combed through the record and produced a 9,000-word report persuasively establishing that Mr. Obama, since early in his presidency, has been in pursuit of a ‘comprehensive agreement’ that would allow Iran to become what the president has called ‘a very successful regional power.’

Understand what that means: Iran would be the hegemon of the Middle East….”

http://defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/may-clifford-d-worse-than-no-strategy/

Is it any wonder that Binyamin Netanyahu has refused to be dissuaded in his determination to address the US Congress on the issue of Iran?

~~~~~~~~~~

You might also want to see “Anatomy of a Bad Iran Deal: A Preliminary Assessment,” by Dore Gold, president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (emphasis added).

A key factor of concern here, as elsewhere is the number of centrifuges that Iran would be permitted to maintain.

“The numbers are important. In a scenario of ‘breakout,’ in which the Iranians race to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for their first atomic bomb, the number of centrifuges largely determines the amount of time the Iranians will need to accomplish this goal…

“Iran currently has 19,000 centrifuges, 9,000 of which are running and 10,000 that are installed but not operating. Israel’s position is that Iran should have zero centrifuges. The reason is that if Iran truly needs enriched uranium for civilian purposes, it could import enriched uranium as do roughly 15 other countries, such as Canada, Mexico, and Spain. The Israeli position is in line with six UN Security Council resolutions that were adopted between 2006 and 2010, with the support of Russia and China.

“…at the beginning of the current round of negotiations, the United States was demanding that Iran significantly reduce its stock of centrifuges to 1,500, but in doing so dropped the longstanding U.S. policy that Iran eliminate its centrifuges completely.

“…According to multiple press reports, Western negotiators have raised the ceiling for the number of centrifuges that Iran will be allowed to have: they have gone from 1,500 to 4,500, and they now appear to be ready to let the Iranians have 6,000 centrifuges.”

When other factors – such as the amount of enriched uranium Iran would be permitted to retain – Iran’s breakout time for producing enough weapons-grade uranium for an atomic bomb would be six months and possibly considerably less.

http://jcpa.org/anatomy-of-a-bad-iran-deal/

~~~~~~~~~~

Last time it was Paris. This time Copenhagen.  Terrifying, but not unexpected.

Early yesterday, a gunman shot into a café where a Swedish cartoonist, Lars Vilks, who had caricatured the Prophet Muhammad was speaking. Vilks body guards successfully whisked him away and he hid in a freezer (shades of Paris). Someone else inside the café – Finn Norgaard, 55, a film director, took a bullet and was killed.

Today, Dan Uzan, 37, a longtime security guard. and a Jew, was shot dead.  Uzan was guarding a synagogue where a Bat Mitzvah celebration was taking place.  According to reports, he was brought in after the café shooting.

The police have pursued and killed someone whom they say they believe was the perpetrator of both attacks. There has been official reluctance to identify him, but Danish media sources are saying it was Omar Abdel Hamid El-Hussein, a man known by authorities and possessing a record of violence.  He had been released from prison two weeks ago.

Could it possibly be, by any remote chance, that a politically correct aversion to fingering a Muslim is behind the police reluctance to officially reveal the terrorist’s identity?

~~~~~~~~~~

The Danish are deeply distressed that this terrorism has come to their door. They are eager to express their horror, and their readiness to protect all citizens and keep life normal.  Here you see pictures of flowers brought to the synagogue where the shooting took place.

Credit:US News
~~~~~~~~~~

Yet, the questions must be asked:  Where next?  And, what normal?

Prime Minister Netanyahu said that this attacks would continue and that the Jews should come home to Israel.  One Danish leader of the Jewish community criticized this, saying that anti-Semitism is not a reason to leave.

It’s not?  Not even when the handwriting is on the wall? Note the Israeli flag hung on the synagogue over the flowers.

~~~~~~~~~~

I close here, then, with a piece on this issue – “After Copenhagen, What Next for Europe?” – written by David Harris, president of the American Jewish Committee. Says Harris (emphasis added):
“…after 15 years of engaging with European leaders to get their attention, help them understand what stares them in the face, and press for sustained action, I’m not quite ready to bet the family farm that the day after tomorrow will be all that different than the day before yesterday.

“Even so, I desperately want to believe that Europe, with all its dazzling achievements since the end of World War II, can still strengthen its resolve, stiffen its spine, and fully understand the stakes involved, however late in the day it is.”

A bit of wishful thinking, given present realities, but what he would wish for is instructive and worth noting.  He calls for the following now:

[] …”quickly organize a high-level conference to discuss the rise in anti-Semitism…discuss and adopt a comprehensive plan of action, and then implement and monitor it.

[]  “European leaders must understand, as French Prime Minister Manuel Valls has, that anti-Semitism is not only an attack on Jews, but also an assault on Europe and its values. The two cannot be separated.

[] “call a spade a spade. For many Europeans, there is no hesitation in identifying the source of anti-Semitism when it emanates from right-wing extremists. But when anti-Semitism, including deadly violence, springs from within a segment of the Muslim population, verbal acrobatics all too often come into play. If you can’t name the adversary, how can you effectively fight it?

[] “stop tying anti-Semitism to Islamophobia, as if the two are Siamese twins. AJC’s Brussels office has been trying for months to encourage a European Parliament hearing on anti-Semitism, only to be met with insistence that any such meeting include Islamophobia. Why this demand to join the two together, when the majority of incidents occurs against Jews, when Europe has a particularly ugly history of anti-Semitism, and when the principal attackers of Jews invoke their Islamic faith?

[] “recognize that we confront both a short- and long-term menace that won’t be overcome by even the most eloquent of speeches and the most symbolic of acts. Rather, it requires a full-court, sustained effort by individual governments (and, of course, by the EU) using the resources they have the capacity to mobilize, joined by the determined efforts of civil society.

[] “connect the lessons of the Holocaust to the present-day threat to the Jews. I’ve witnessed too many Holocaust-related events where murdered Jews are mourned — Jews who, tragically, cannot be brought back to life — but that totally ignore the current dangers to living Jews. A refusal to connect the two quite frankly empties these commemorations of much of their meaning and sincerity.

[] don’t apologize for European values of democracy, human dignity, openness, and pluralism….It’s high time to stand up in defense of these noble values and do everything possible to ensure that newcomers embrace them as well.

[] “it is important to understand that the jihadist barbarism which Europe is experiencing first-hand is not much different from what Israel has been facing for decades. Why, then, does Europe continue to try drawing a distinction, when, in reality none exists? The same jihadists who hate Europe detest Israel, and the same jihadists who wish for Israel’s annihilation aspire to no less for Europe as we know it.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-harris/after-copenhagen-what-nex_b_6688370.html

Right on!  This is a reasonably comprehensive list of what’s wrong in Europe today, regarding anti-Semitism and radical Islam.  Now…if only.

02/16/15

Attack On Free Speech – Swedish Cartoonist Was Intended Target – Lt Col Ralph Peters

Ralph Peters: Until Islam Is Held to the Same Standards as Other Religions, Ethically and Behaviorally, Terrorism Wins [Video]

02/16/15

Retired four-star admiral says the unsayable about Islam and President Obama’s foreign policy strategy

By: Benjamin Weingarten
TheBlaze

Recently we reported on retired Lt. Gen. and former DIA Chief Mike Flynn’s devastating criticism of the terms of President Obama’s Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against ISIS.

Another prominent retired member of America’s armed forces who has emerged as an outspoken opponent of the Obama administration’s foreign policy is four-star admiral James “Ace” Lyons.

During the Center for Security Policy’s recent Defeat Jihad Summit, the naval officer of 36 years, who served most recently as the Commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, made some simply astounding comments about Islam and President Obama’s foreign policy strategy:

Lyons’ remarks followed a scathing critique of the bipartisan failure of U.S. leaders to deal with the threat of Islamic supremacism, dating back to President Carter.

The Defeat Jihad Summit, held on February 11, was intended to serve as a corrective for the Obama administration’s forthcoming Countering Violent Extremism summit.

The event included prominent counterjihadists such as Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders and dozens of others.

You can watch full video of the conference here.

(H/T: Gates of Vienna)