04/25/15

Loretta “I Refuse To Answer” Lynch Confirmed As Attorney General After Republican Betrayal

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton


Getty Images

The Republican Party is becoming more and more detached from their conservative base. They seem to vote against anything the conservatives want and do all they can to enable our Marxist president. As Andrew McCarthy put it, “Voting to confirm an attorney general who won’t uphold the Constitution isn’t a way to inspire confidence among conservatives.”

Last Thursday, Karl Rove couldn’t wait to announce that, “The dysfunctional Congress finally appears to be working again as the Founders intended.” Really? Because this isn’t the way I perceive the Founders having intended it at all. They would have impeached and removed a sitting president who acted like a monarch. Then to validate Rove’s proclamation, the GOP-controlled Senate confirmed as attorney general Loretta Lynch who blatantly supports the systematic non-enforcement of federal law. Ms. Lynch also supports President Obama’s boldly unconstitutional usurpations of legislative authority, including Congress’ power to set the terms of lawful presence by aliens in our country. Ted Cruz SLAMMED the Republican majority in the Senate for allowing the Lynch nomination:

On the Senate floor a few moments ago, Ted Cruz SLAMMED the new Senate Republican majority for refusing to block Loretta Lynch’s nomination to attorney general. He said that the Republican majority could continue to block the nomination if they wanted to and it’s something he’s urged them to do because of her admissions to run the DOJ in a lawless fashion just like Eric Holder.

He pointed out that more than a few voters are asking what is the difference between a Republican and Democratic Senate majority when someone promising the exact same lawlessness as Holder will be allowed to get confirmed. He says that’s something each Republican will have to explain to their constituents.

He also adds that not a single Republican can vote for such a nomination and be consistent with their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution.

Unfortunately, Loretta Lynch was just confirmed. Sigh.

Here is a small sampling of Loretta Lynch’s answers at her confirmation hearing:

Q: Will you defend Obama’s illegal Executive Amnesty?
A: Lynch thinks the Administration’s contrived legal justification is reasonable. She sees nothing wrong with the President’s decision to unilaterally grant lawful status and work authorizations that are explicitly barred by federal law to nearly 5 million people who are here illegally.

Q: Who has more right to a job in this country? A lawful immigrant who’s here as a citizen – or a person who entered the country unlawfully?
A: Lynch believes that the right and the obligation to work is one that’s shared by everyone in this country regardless of how they came here. And certainly, if someone is here, regardless of status, she would prefer that they would be participating in the workplace than not participating in the workplace.

Q: Concerning the limits of prosecutorial discretion… the dubious theory that President Obama has put forward to justify his illegal Executive Amnesty; where do you stand?
A: Lynch would give no limits to that theory.

Q: Can a subsequent President use prosecutorial discretion to order the Treasury Secretary not to enforce the tax laws and to collect no more income taxes in excess of 25%?
A: She refused to answer.

Q: Can a subsequent President use prosecutorial discretion to exempt the state of Texas, all 27 million people, from every single federal labor and environmental law?
A: She refused to answer.

Q: Do you agree with the Holder Justice Department that the government could place a GPS sensor on the car of every single American without probable cause?
A: She refused to answer.

Q: Do you agree with the Holder Justice Department that the First Amendment gives no religious liberty protection whatsoever to a church’s or a synagogue’s choice of their own pastor or rabbi?
A: She refused to answer.

Q: Do you believe the federal government can employ a drone to kill a US citizen on American soil if that citizen does not pose an imminent threat?
A: She refused to answer.

Q: Would you be willing to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the IRS’ targeting of citizens and citizen groups for their political views? An investigator that was at a minimum, not a major Obama donor?
A: She refused to answer.

Our ‘functional Congress’ confirmed Loretta Lynch as our new attorney general, replacing Eric Holder, possibly the most lawless, racist and fascist AG this nation has ever seen. Lynch testified brazenly that she endorses and intends to facilitate the president’s lawlessness and constitutional violations. Having heard her testimony during the confirmation hearings, 10 Republican senators decided to vote for Lynch. Remember, the position of attorney general exists to ensure that the laws are enforced and the Constitution is preserved; and… each senator has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. This should have been a no-brainer. Yet, Republicans sided with the Marxist Leftists and Lynch was confirmed. The ten Republicans who voted for confirmation were: Kelly Ayotte, Ron Johnson, Mark Kirk, Rob Portman, Thad Cochran, Susan Collins, Jeff Flake, Lindsey Graham, Orrin Hatch and Mitch McConnell. The Senate voted 56–43 in favor of Lynch.

Mitch McConnell bald-facedly lied in October. While he was wooing conservatives for the upcoming midterm election, he stated that any nominee that was going to replace Eric Holder as “the nation’s highest law-enforcement official” must, “as a condition of his or her confirmation,” avoid “at all costs” Holder’s penchant for putting “political and ideological commitments ahead of the rule of law” — including as it “relates to the president’s acting unilaterally on immigration or anything else.” He fibbed big time and betrayed conservatives nationwide. It was his wheeling and dealing that led to the deal that was struck with Harry Reid and that cinched Lynch’s confirmation.

Here’s Mitch McConnell’s deal: If Democrats agree to stop blocking a human trafficking bill over some boilerplate language regarding abortion funding — a position that made them look unreasonable — Republicans, with all the leverage imaginable, will help confirm another attorney general nominee who will rubber stamp the president’s many overreaches. So, you see in the end, the Republicans voted for the continuation of the abuse of Executive power. It’s really just that simple. The reasons given for supporting Lynch included that she was a black woman and the best so far to come out the Obama White House – those are two breathtakingly horrible reasons for Lynch to be confirmed. It’s absolutely shameful politicking.

If you didn’t think Mitch McConnell was a lying, conniving Progressive before… you should now. Once the November election was won and behind him, McConnell went to work behind the scenes to whip up support for Loretta Lynch. He wielded his power from the shadows and strong-armed others into supporting her. By voting for her confirmation, he summarily flipped off any conservative who had been foolish enough to believe his campaign rhetoric. Suckers.

But it is even worse than that. From Andrew McCarthy:

That doesn’t begin to quantify the perfidy, though. In order to get Lynch to the finish line, McConnell first had to break conservative opposition to allowing a final vote for her nomination. The majority leader thus twisted enough arms that 20 Republicans voted to end debate. This guaranteed that Lynch would not only get a final vote but would, in the end, prevail — Senators Hatch, Graham, Flake, Collins, and Kirk having already announced their intention to join all 46 Democrats in getting Lynch to the magic confirmation number of 51.

So, in addition to the aforementioned ten Republicans who said “aye” on the final vote to make Lynch attorney general, there are ten others who conspired in the GOP’s now routine parliamentary deception: Vote in favor of ending debate, knowing that this will give Democrats ultimate victory, but cast a meaningless vote against the Democrats in the final tally in order to pose as staunch Obama opponents when schmoozing the saps back home. These ten — John Thune (S.D.), John Cornyn (Texas), Bob Corker (Tenn.), Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Pat Roberts (Kan.), Richard Burr (N.C.), Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.), Cory Gardner (Col.), Mike Rounds (S.D.), and Thom Tillis (N.C.) — are just as willfully complicit in Lynch’s confirmation and her imminent execution of Obama’s lawlessness.

This is not a Senate back to regular order. It is a disgrace, one that leads to the farce’s final act: On Monday, Loretta Lynch will ceremoniously take the oath to uphold the Constitution she has already told us she will undermine.

This is not about immigration, amnesty, health care, and the full spectrum of tough issues on which reasonable minds can differ. It is about the collapse of fundamental assumptions on which the rule of law rests. When solemn oaths are empty words, when missions such as “law enforcement” become self-parody, public contempt for Washington intensifies — in particular, on the political right, which wants to preserve the good society and constitutional order the rule of law sustains.

Mitch McConnell and the other Progressive RINOs are responsible for destroying mainstream America’s faith in their government and the rule of law. Our contempt and disgust for those in DC is now complete. The last time out for a presidential election, millions of Republicans were so disillusioned that they stayed home rather than voting. Obama won a second term that way. It appears that the Republican Party is intent on losing the next presidential race as well… they obviously don’t give a flying crap about their base. Ask yourself this… would McConnell be doing anything differently if he were Obama’s insider in the Senate?

Mike Lee had this to say:

“I voted against her because even though I walked into her confirmation process with an open mind, hoping and even expecting to like her, I couldn’t vote for her because she refused to answer any of my questions about prosecutorial discretion and its limits,” Sen. Mike Lee, whose grilling gave Lynch the most trouble, told The Federalist. “Even as I made the questions more and more obvious, and gave her hypotheticals which I thought made the question clearer, she refused to answer. It’s not because she doesn’t have the capacity, it’s because she had concluded that she wanted to share as little information as possible and, apparently, she responded well to coaching. I found that troubling.”

Lee had offered a hypothetical scenario wherein a governor wanted to raise the speed limit from 55 miles per-hour to 75 but could not convince the legislature. Could that governor decide to unilaterally instruct his highway patrol to not enforce the speed limit? Could he issue permits to drivers who wanted to exceed the limits established by statute? “I thought that was a pretty reasonable hypothetical,” Lee explained. She refused [to] discuss the scenario.

And from TheBlaze:

Much of the GOP’s opposition to Lynch was due to her support for Obama’s executive action on immigration. During her confirmation hearing, Lynch said she believes Obama’s plan was consistent with the Constitution, drawing outrage from Republicans who have said it’s an end-run around Congress.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the most vocal Republican against Obama’s plan, said the Senate shouldn’t confirm Lynch to be the nation’s top law enforcement officer given her support for what he has called an illegal move by Obama.

“The Senate must never confirm an individual to such an office as this who will support and advance a scheme that violates our Constitution and eviscerates established law and congressional authority,” he said Thursday. “No person who would do that should be confirmed. And we don’t need to be apologetic about it, colleagues.”

Obstructionist and evasive doesn’t quite do Loretta Lynch justice here. In my opinion, she is an anti-Constitutionalist and certainly a Liberal Progressive. I am convinced that Lynch is not only a racist, she will be just as bad or worse than Eric Holder and you can thank, in large part, Mitch McConnell and the Progressive Republicans for it. She also has a very special enthusiasm for civil asset forfeiture that she will up the stakes on across the nation. The fact that she is black and a woman should have nothing to do with her confirmation – her adherence and stances on the law and the Constitution should be all that counts. We are definitely at a Constitutional tipping point and Loretta “I Refuse To Answer” Lynch may very well be the Progressive straw that broke the Republic’s back.

04/22/15

If Hillary Clinton Wants to ‘Topple’ the One Percent, She Should Start With Herself

By: Benjamin Weingarten
TheBlaze

Hillary Clinton, without a hint of irony, has reportedly called for “toppling” the 1 percent. So the putative favorite for the Democratic presidential nomination intends to target those who — like herself, her husband and the benefactors of her family foundation – are the wealthiest of the wealthy.

If Mrs. Clinton is seeking to upend a system that pays off a select group of elite insiders who profit by undertaking cronyistic, anti-free market acts, I applaud her. But if Mrs. Clinton is rather seeking to punish the few who have amassed great wealth by producing goods and services for their fellow man, Hillary ought to be pilloried.

Hillary Clinton. (AP Photo/Molly Riley)

Hillary Clinton. (AP Photo/Molly Riley)

Any national conversation convened by Mrs. Clinton on disparities in wealth should begin with a long look in the mirror. Hillary and Bill Clinton have obtained their wealth not by meeting a true market demand, but by transacting in the political marketplace of power and influence.

Distasteful as we might find this, one cannot blame them – at least to the extent to which they were not effectively compensated for fulfilling or seeking to fulfill their end of a bribe.

For though an extreme example of successful political entrepreneurs, the Clintons are a mere symptom of a problem created by government itself, which like all institutions seeks to protect, preserve and enrich its own.

People like the Clintons, Eric Cantor, Deval Patrick and thousands of other well-connected ”public servants” find highly remunerative work while out of office because political access and protection are prized in the marketplace.

Political power is only prized by the marketplace because there is something to be bought. Political payoffs, to our nation’s detriment, are simply seen as the cost of doing business.

Stated differently, because we have a hyper-regulatory state today that is all-intrusive and all-powerful, currying political favor may be the difference between life and death, endless riches and cataclysmic failure.

This state of affairs effects corporate executives whose profits may rest on regulations that keep out or handicap competition, antitrust rulings that prevent competitors from merging or the receipt of government contracts and subsidies. But more broadly, it encompasses an endless army of accountants, lawyers, regulators, compliance officers, human resource professionals and even investors whose jobs exist solely due to such a system.

In a truly free economy – as opposed to the caricature of one provided by the Left — the marketplace votes on who succeeds and who fails by rewarding those with the skills, talents and ambitions to provide something the public deems of value.

When an enterprise fails, its resources – from land, labor and capital to intangible assets like intellectual property and market information – are picked up by more capable hands and put to better use.

In such a system, the so-called ”1 percent” – unlike in socialist countries – does not consist of a static class of politicians and their cronies, but rather, a dynamic class of individuals who rise and fall based on the marketplace. This is another way of saying that businesses succeed and fail based on the ever-changing demands and preferences of the people.

Of course, not only the political class but many others in today’s 1 percent would be adversely effected by abolishing the hyper-regulatory state and implementing a loophole-free intelligible tax code where all compete on an open and level playing field.

That America still retains even a semblance of dynamism in the face of our hundreds of thousands of pages of indecipherable regulations, a byzantine tax code not to mention the increasingly whimsical enforcement of property rights is a testament to the undying creative spirit that has yet to be extinguished by a political class that in effect is hellbent on doing so.

Americans in general, and Hillary Clinton in particular ought to remember that the government in Washington D.C., unlike the one percent and the rest of the private sector, does not create anything. Rather, its denizens take the wealth of others – including that of our children, our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren – and redistribute it. In the process, the jobs “created” are at root non-productive: They merely serve as one pocket from which to funnel money from another. These jobs represent a massive diversion of resources from activities that society would otherwise reward to those which dissipate wealth.

This is a tragedy not just in economic terms as a “deadweight loss,” but in human terms in the waste of the talents and ambitions of those who would be better served focusing their energies elsewhere – developing truly great and transformative goods and services to the benefit of all, while in so doing creating fulfilling work for others.

The trillions of dollars in wealth diverted today further would be better allocated by the public rather than by politicians. Imagine what Steve Jobs might have accomplished had Apple’s tax dollars remained with him and not been entrusted to the federal government each year.

From a moral perspective, should you have control over what you have created, or should government have a first claim on the fruit of your labor?

For Mrs. Clinton who has also railed against money in politics, a Constitutionally faithful and thereby limited government that stopped concerning itself with every aspect of our lives would have the doubly positive effect of discouraging individuals and businesses from “investing” in politicians through the funding of their campaigns. After all, successful individuals invest their time, energy and capital where it will receive its highest return. There would be very little return to be generated if government solely concerned itself with the clearly enumerated powers of the Constitution.

Fairness does not consist in tearing down our fellow citizens, but in treating them equally on the basis of merit. And little is more antithetical to a free society than rewarding people based upon how well they wield the threat of government control.

Here’s to hoping that Hillary topples the government-created one percent, beginning with herself.

Feature Image: AP Photo/Elise Amendola

04/13/15

Conservative Writer: Liberalism Is ‘Totalitarianism Masquerading As Tolerance’ [VIDEO]

By: Ginni Thomas
The Daily Caller

With millennial support for President Obama dropping from 58 percent in 2009 to 34 percent last December, Benjamin Weingarten, 26, demonstrates confidence as a foe of secular progressives.

Weingarten prides himself for studying those who don’t value our founding principles while studying at Columbia University and living in New York and New Jersey. Nineteen months ago, he left a promising career on Wall Street to join Glenn Beck’s The Blaze to influence the cultural and political debates of our time.

By interviewing authors of provocative books, doing podcasts and appearing on Beck’s programming, Weingarten is engaging the culture to reclaim traditional American ideals. In New York and New Jersey, he admits he basically “gets push back every time he opens his mouth.”

In this wide-ranging video interview with The Daily Caller, Weingarten discusses the troubling phenomenon of “totalitarianism masquerading as tolerance.” He finds it curious that the secular left refuses to defend the free speech of someone like Ayaan Hirsi Ali — who left her Muslim faith after horrendous personal harm and at great risk. Weingarten says, the “left is tolerant of people who take their viewpoint. And, no matter what your identity, if you disagree with their viewpoint, you are the enemy.”

On the Iran deal, Weingarten said “if there were ever a case where the devil was in the details, this would be it.” Surveying international reactions, Weingarten commented, “If the French are taking a harder line against the Iranians than America, then something is seriously rotten in our national security establishment and in the Executive Branch.”

As for the administration’s allies calling Republican Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton and his Republican colleagues “traitorous” for merely reminding Iran that the Senate must ratify any binding treaty, Weingarten says, “when it serves their interest, the left would like to have nothing to do with Congress.”

Progressives, he mentions, push their agenda by any means necessary. After November’s elections, Obama, Weingarten says, is “un-tethered from constitutional authority,” “brazen,” “audacious” and “dangerous.”

The Obama foreign policy doctrine, driven by the progressive worldview, is, he says, “to spit in the face of our allies and coddle our enemies.”

Our adversaries, according to Weingarten, are Russia, China, Islamic extremists and Iran. As for the Muslim Brotherhood allies in America who now advise the Obama national security team, we have “foxes guarding the henhouse.” He thinks “we are willfully blind” and seem overdue for another catastrophic act from terrorists.

As for the record of House and Senate Republicans, Weingarten is underwhelmed, calling them “derelict.”

Weingarten lays out criteria — such as amnesty, common core, and liberty — to judge the growing field of nominees posturing to run for president in 2016. Two vulnerabilities for Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid, according to Weingarten, are the calamitous and mistaken Russian reset, and the entire Libyan debacle. Clinton’s toppling of the Libyan leader with its horrendous consequences should be something she is held responsible for, Weingarten believes.

WATCH:

For more on Benjamin Weingarten and his work at Glenn Beck’s TheBlaze Books, see his author page and his personal Twitter account, as well as TheBlaze Books podcast, and TheBlaze Books page, Twitter and Facebook.

04/6/15

America’s Progressive Foreign Policy Imperils Her Survival

By: Benjamin Weingarten
TheBlaze

Today the men and women who walk the morally decrepit corridors of the White House and State Department of our Republic-turned-social democracy are aiding, abetting and enabling evil.

We find ourselves at a time in history when all of our foes from Islamic supremacists to the Russians and Chinese are ascendant, while America at best retreats and at worst sides with the most dangerous of them.

Barack Obama delivers his statement on the interim Iran deal. (Image Source: Whitehouse.gov/YouTube screengrab)

Barack Obama delivers his statement on the interim Iran deal. (Image Source: Whitehouse.gov/YouTube screengrab)

Our enemies do not fear or respect us, our allies do not trust us and little indicates that the American people are cognizant of the size and scope of the perils that face us.

We are reliving Winston Churchill’s gathering storm in an era when it is questionable whether the majority of American citizens even know who Churchill is, let alone what he did. Many of those who do likely see him first and foremost as a dead white European male.

And unlike in World War II, today we are challenged by Nazis (insofar as Islamic supremacists are genocidal, Jew (and Christian) hating monsters who seek to dominate the world) and Communists (in their Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping-led manifestations.)

In the face of all this, America’s left exhibits two traits that together are fatal: hubris and ignorance.

Leftists have the hubris to believe that they can and should create a world according to their progressive vision – for the good of the people and their own aggrandizement.

Leftists have the ignorance of history and man’s nature that renders them unable to anticipate the dire consequences of their course.

Underlying their actions is the belief that all people are animated by the same goals and aspirations.

Yet different peoples are different. Evil cannot be appeased or assuaged. The world must be seen as it is, not as we wish it to be.

For those leaders who recognize these realities, yet still refuse to call our enemies by their names, enable their nuclear aspirations, and tolerate their bellicosity from Crimea to the South China Sea and our own shores, the only conclusion one can reach is that such people are cowards or something far worse.

Seen in this light, the support of the removal of secular authoritarian leaders and subsequent conflagration of Sunni and Shiite jihadism in the Middle East is a natural manifestation of progressivism.

The Iranian nuclear deal and impending Arab nuclearization is a natural manifestation of progressivism.

The galling and unconscionable replacement of Israel by Iran as America’s key partner in the region is a natural manifestation of progressivism.

The backing of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the omission of Iran and Iran-backed Hezbollah from America’s terror lists, is a natural manifestation of progressivism.

The removal, let alone trading of terrorists at Guantanamo Bay for an alleged traitor is a natural manifestation of progressivism.

The failure to fulfill our obligation to Ukraine under the Budapest Memorandum is a natural manifestation of progressivism.

The apparent unwillingness to stand with our NATO allies in the wake of further Russian aggression is a natural manifestation of progressivism.

The inability to counter the long-term Chinese threat is a natural manifestation of progressivism.

The opening of relations with Communist Cuba is a natural manifestation of progressivism.

These and many other actions should not shock anyone who understands the leftist ethos that America specifically and the West generally has been a force for evil and that redistributive justice is the remedy.

Empowering our enemies and attacking our allies is seen as the “right” thing to do under this perverse Sophistic paradigm.

That each day real headlines and the headlines of The Onion are indistinguishable; that when you routinely find yourself coming to the conclusion that the world has been turned on its head, this is the consequence of progressivism in action.

And progressivism always and everywhere leads to regressive ends.

Where are we heading?

As Dr. Thomas Sowell ominously writes:

Whoever holds that office [the presidency] makes decisions involving the life and death of Americans and — especially if Iran gets a nuclear arsenal — the life and death of this nation. It took just two nuclear bombs — neither of them as powerful as those available today — to get a very tough nation like Japan to surrender.

Anyone familiar with World War II battles in the Pacific knows that it was not unusual for 90 percent of the Japanese troops defending Iwo Jima or other islands to fight to the death, even after it was clear that American troops had them beaten.

When people like that surrender after two nuclear bombs, do not imagine that today’s soft Americans — led by the likes of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton — will fight on after New York and Chicago have been reduced to radioactive ashes.

If this sounds alarmist, simply ask: With what in this statement do you disagree?

What countertrends do you see?

What reason is there to believe that, barring a significant reversal in our country’s academic and cultural institutions, the public is going to stir and demand meaningful change?

Has not political correctness gotten Americans literally killed from Iraq (via suicidal rules of engagement) to Fort Hood (via willful blindness) without a modicum of reflection on what went wrong and how to fix it?

Would an America awake to Barack Obama’s vision have elected him for a second term? Is it prepared to elect a president with the courage and intestinal fortitude to reverse our direction in the face of a craven political class?

So long as the forces of cosmic justice and gravity still exist, continuing on this path can only end in war and poverty.

The question for those of us who believe that America remains the last, best hope on Earth for freedom may not be what we can do to stop these forces, but what we must be prepared to do to survive and rebuild in the face of them.

03/26/15

20 Foreign Policy Questions For the 2016 Republican Presidential Field

By: Benjamin Weingarten
TheBlaze

With the race for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination officially under way, I thought it apt to share a set of questions on foreign policy — an area in which it is vital that each candidate distinguish himself given the size and scope of the threats we face.

Below are 20 questions the next commander-in-chief will likely be grappling with, and should be able to answer cogently, consistently and comprehensively.

The responses to these queries would serve to elucidate the first principles of each of the potential nominees, and create a clear contrast in terms of their goals, strategies and tactics with respect to protecting and furthering America’s interests both at home and abroad.

1) Define your general foreign policy doctrine, and explain how it will differ from that of President George W. Bush.

2) How should America respond to the metastasization of Sunni and Shiite jihadists in the Middle East?

3) What do you believe would be the consequences of a hegemonic Iran in the region, and what steps might you take to counter her?

4) In the event of a nuclear arms race triggered by Iran, what if anything would you do as president?

5) Will you stand in the way if Israel acts unilaterally to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities?

6) What is in America’s national interest with respect to Syria, and how do you intend to achieve it?

7) Do you believe it a sound policy to arm Muslim groups in the Middle East given the historically negative consequences for the West?

8) What is/are the key lesson(s) of the Iraq War?

9) What is/are the key lesson(s) of Libya?

10) Do you believe the Muslim Brotherhood and its violent and non-violent proxies both in the Middle East and the West pose a direct threat to the United States and her interests, and how will you counter the group’s growing influence?

11) What do you believe Vladimir Putin ultimately wants to achieve, and how do you intend to counter him?

12) Will you install a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe?

13) Do you view Russia as a partner against jihadism, an opportunist playing both sides against the middle, or something else?

14) In a Western Europe seeing a dramatic increase in its jihadist population – which is being countered by the rise of anti-Islamization groups, many of which are favorably disposed to Russia — how should America respond?

15) Should Europe be required to fund NATO to a much more significant degree?

16) How will you counter the inroads made in South America by Russia, Iran and other American foes?

17) Is China an ally or an enemy, and do you believe she seeks peaceful co-existence with the US ultimately?

18) What measures would you take, if any, to counter China’s increasingly aggressive actions in the South China Sea, and stealing of intellectual property, among other actions against America and her allies?

19) Does the United States have a national security interest in undermining Communist nations such as China, Cuba and North Korea or should we take a live-and-let-live approach?

20) Should the United States withdraw troops from South Korea, Western Europe or any other nation/region?

Feature Image: AP Photo/The Elkhart Truth, Jon Garcia

03/19/15

Obama Peddles Osama’s Propaganda

By: Benjamin Weingarten
TheBlaze

Without America there would be no Islamic State.

Indeed, without America there would have been no Cold War. Without the Cold War there would have been no need to arm and train the Mujahideen against the Soviets. Without the Mujahideen there would have been no Al Qaeda. Without Al Qaeda there would have been no Iraq War. And without the Iraq War there would have been no Islamic State. Or as President Barack Obama put it:

ISIL is a direct outgrowth of Al Qaeda in Iraq which grew out of our invasion which is an example of unintended consequences which is why we should generally aim before we shoot.

Such is the pretzel logic to which one must subscribe if one is to believe the president.

Which is to say that Barack Obama’s argument during a recent interview with VICE News is patently absurd.

(Image Source: VICE News/YouTube screengrab)

(Image Source: VICE News/YouTube screengrab)

But there is something worse than the absurdity of the president’s remarks, his implicit banal Bush-bashing and unwillingness or inability to ever take responsibility for anything – the least of which includes his failure to negotiate a status of forces agreement with Iraq.

President Obama’s argument in the main is that America’s actions in the Middle East create terrorists. But by invoking “blowback,” he is parroting precisely the propaganda that Al Qaeda, Islamic State and other jihadist groups want us to repeat, while ignoring the self-evident truth that their actions come not from without but from within. In so doing, as when he raised the scepter of The Crusades, the president provides a veneer of legitimacy and even moral standing to genocidal Islamic supremacists who seek to destroy Western civilization and create a global caliphate.

The words of Osama bin Laden himself are germane to this argument. Witness what Al Qaeda’s godfather said during a May 1998 interview with ABC’s John Miller:

The call to wage war against America was made because America has spear-headed the crusade against the Islamic nation, sending tens of thousands of its troops to the land of the two Holy Mosques over and above its meddling in its affairs and its politics, and its support of the oppressive, corrupt and tyrannical regime that is in control. These are the reasons behind the singling out of America as a target.

…The wrongs and the crimes committed against the Muslim nation are far greater than can be covered by this interview. America heads the list of aggressors against Muslims.

…They rip us of our wealth and of our resources and of our oil. Our religion is under attack. They kill and murder our brothers. They compromise our honor and our dignity and dare we utter a single word of protest against the injustice, we are called terrorists. This is compounded injustice.

In a particularly nauseating portion of the interview in which Miller implores bin Laden to “give us the true picture that clarifies your viewpoint” – as opposed to the “distorted picture of Islam, Muslims and of Islamic fighters” presented by “American politicians,” bin Laden continues [emphasis added]:

The leaders in America and in other countries as well have fallen victim to Jewish Zionist blackmail. They have mobilized their people against Islam and against Muslims. These are portrayed in such a manner as to drive people to rally against them. The truth is that the whole Muslim world is the victim of international terrorism, engineered by America at the United Nations. We are a nation whose sacred symbols have been looted and whose wealth and resources have been plundered. It is normal for us to react against the forces that invade our land and occupy it.

Ignored however is the rest of bin Laden’s message [emphasis added]:

…[O]ur call is the call of Islam that was revealed to Mohammed. It is a call to all mankind. We have been entrusted with good cause to follow in the footsteps of the Messenger and to communicate his message to all nations.

…In our religion, we believe that Allah has created us for the purpose of worshipping him. He is the one who has created us and who has favored us with this religion. Allah has ordered us to make holy wars and to fight to see to it that His word is the highest and the uppermost and that of the unbelievers the lowermost. We believe that this is the call we have to answer regardless of our financial capabilities.

This too answers the claims of the West and of the secular people in the Arab world. They claim that this blessed awakening and the people reverting to Islam are due to economic factors. This is not so. It is rather a grace from Allah, a desire to embrace the religion of Allah.

…I am one of the servants of Allah. We do our duty of fighting for the sake of the religion of Allah. It is also our duty to send a call to all the people of the world to enjoy this great light and to embrace Islam and experience the happiness in Islam. Our primary mission is nothing but the furthering of this religion.

This bin Laden interview is crucial because it illustrates the two-sided nature of Al Qaeda’s rhetoric and the rhetoric of jihadists more broadly — appealing on the one hand to the West’s materialism, and on the other to the Middle East’s idealism.

Indeed one of the primary but underappreciated elements of the global jihad is the subtle psychological warfare in which bin Laden engages above by way of the materialist argument.

Understanding the West’s unhealthy sense of guilt and shame, bin Laden portrays jihadists as the oppressed to our oppressor, the victim to our aggressor. Bin Laden knew that repeating such arguments — regardless of their veracity — would have a profound effect on the Western consciousness over time.

Conversely, playing on our moral relativism, multiculturalism and religious tolerance, bin Laden knew that we would fail to internalize his idealist worldview: A worldview formed by the Islamic doctrine that animates jihadists and lays bare their goals, strategies and tactics.

We have accepted the former (materialism) but ignored the latter (idealism), which explains in part why we are losing to the global jihad.

If you disagree with this assertion, consider that we in the West ask “Why do they hate us?” We search in vain for “root causes” of radicalization, and tell ourselves that a group that calls itself Islamic State and follows Muhammad literally perverts Islam or has nothing to do with it at all.

Meanwhile, our enemies self-identify as Islamic jihadists — a jihad compelled by the corpus of Islamic texts – whose end goal is to make the entire world submit to Allah’s rule.

President Obama either out of political correctness, ignorance or a more nefarious impulse damages America’s cause by parroting the victimology that Osama bin Laden knew Western progressives would buy hook, line and sinker.

He gives credence to our enemies’ arguments while implementing an agenda ostensibly to combat them wholly consonant with such a worldview, and thereby wholly ineffectual.

This is the far more consequential and far more dangerous takeaway from the president’s interview than the tired invocation of “Bush’s fault” that Obama’s critics have harped on.

Feature Image: AP Photo/Irwin Fedriansyah

03/16/15

Four Reasons Why the Left Loathes Senator Cotton’s Letter to Iran

By: Benjamin Weingarten
TheBlaze

That a short letter penned by an Iraq War veteran and signed by 46 of his colleagues in the Senate would earn the ridicule, scorn and derision of the left, while generating wobbliness among the more politically craven members of the right, is a testament to its virtue.

The primarily pedagogic letter’s detractors have invoked the Logan Act, signing a petition calling for the prosecution of the letter’s signatories on grounds of treason. But little could be further from treasonous than publicly opposing a policy that legitimizes and empowers a mortal enemy of America and her interests.

This Aug. 21, 2014, file photo shows Rep. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., as he speaks during a news conference in North Little Rock, Ark. (AP Photo/Danny Johnston, File)

This Aug. 21, 2014, file photo shows Rep. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., as he speaks during a news conference in North Little Rock, Ark. (AP Photo/Danny Johnston, File)

Worse still, legislators who in actuality undermined American interests by negotiating with our enemies are mentioned in the same light. This list of shame includes: John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi among others.

The truth of the matter is that Sen. Cotton’s letter sticks in the craw of the left, causing it’s partisans to resort to ad hominem and absurd attacks. They do so primarily for four reasons:

1. Sen. Cotton’s letter forces the left to defend the indefensible

Whether addressing the congressional speech of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or the letter authored by Sen. Tom Cotton, the left rarely attacks on substance because it realizes the content of its opponents’ message is credible, and the character of the messengers is widely seen as unimpeachable.

The same cannot be said however of the deal that President Barack Obama seeks to consummate, and the parties sitting at the negotiating table.

Across the political spectrum Iran is seen as the world’s leading state sponsor of terror.

Iran and her proxies have drawn the blood of America and her allies for decades.

Iran has been forthright in stating its desire to destroy Israel.

Iran has demonstrated — and continues to demonstrate – its willingness to lie, deceive and cheat with respect to the size and nature of its nuclear program.

It is further unquestioned that a nuclear-armed Iran will have grave consequences including acceleration and expansion of the Middle East’s arms race.

It is also crystal clear that the Obama administration does not have the will or desire to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, and is rumored to have stymied Israel’s own plans to conduct such an operation.

Finally, the Obama administration has opposed at every turn efforts to implement tougher sanctions that would aim to economically cripple, and politically undermine its mullahs.

To date, the president has instead chosen to ease sanctions on Iran, facilitating the flow of billions of dollars back into its ailing economy, and tacitly supported its elite forces in their fight against the Islamic State. Further, the president has sought to portray Iran as a pillar of Middle East stability and perhaps America’s top ally in the region over Israel. He has done so while concurrently negotiating a deal that by published accounts will allow Iran to enrich uranium and ultimately develop a nuclear bomb — even if Iran is fully compliant with the terms of the accord. These actions have served to legitimize and empower Tehran, while at the same time increasing the threat to the United States and her allies.

One could make the case that regardless of the outcome of negotiations, Iran has already won. Its leaders have already declared victory through triumphant word and deed.

For these reasons, any actions that challenge the president’s negotiations shine a spotlight on a disastrous policy, forcing the left into the uncomfortable spot of defending the self-evidently indefensible.

2. Sen. Cotton’s letter represents a direct challenge to President Obama

There is little that unites the left more than attacks on the policies of President Obama, which it reflexively spins as attacks on the president himself.

This is most clearly evidenced by pundits such as Chris Matthews, who implied Sen. Cotton and his colleagues are racists for signing a letter that is singularly factual and aimed at questions of policy.

In the eyes of the left, the least-vetted, least-challenged president in the modern era must never be touched.

Should anyone have the temerity to do so, the left closes ranks and pillories the offender.

Even the few members of the left who brazenly challenge the Iran policy of President Obama face the administration’s wrath.

3. Sen. Cotton had the gall to actually invoke the Constitution in defense of his action

Back in October 2009, then-Speaker Pelosi was famously asked what part of the Constitution authorized Obamacare’s individual mandate. Her response? “Are you serious?”

Give the Congresswoman credit for her candor.

In that moment she perfectly crystallized the modern left’s view of the Constitution – it is an afterthought, a powerless piece of parchment should it stand as an impediment to Democrat designs.

Does anyone honestly believe that the left is upset at Sen. Cotton’s actions because he did not follow some sort of protocol to which the left has never subjected itself, and which the Constitution does not require? Does the left honestly believe either in letter or spirit that Cotton and his colleagues actually violated the Logan Act?

Rarely have the Democrats during the Obama reign argued for the sanctity of protocol, let alone the rule of law – except when it comes to others voicing opinions they find inconsistent with their narrative and/or harmful to their agenda (e.g., Netanyahu’s speech before Congress).

Senator Cotton is not violating either the Constitution or the Logan Act by writing a letter that informs Iran as to the Senate’s prerogative on foreign policy, and illustrates the weakness of an unratified agreement in the first place. If anything, he is pointing out to the Iranian leadership how the US Government was set-up to work – checks and balances of which some in the Obama administration and on the left seem sorely unaware.

4. Sen. Cotton’s letter contains painful truths

If the negotiations that President Obama was unilaterally conducting with a genocidal jihadist regime were in the best interest of the United States, a letter such as Sen. Cotton’s would be dismissed out of hand and simply ignored.

At most, Democrats would welcome it as discrediting of Republicans.

Yet the left has not attacked the letter on either of these bases.

To the contrary, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki and Secretary of State John Kerry have both been forced to acknowledge that Sen. Cotton and his colleagues are correct in noting that any nuclear deal is nonbinding on the next president, should it not be placed before the US Senate and have at least 67 senators agree to ratify it.

This is a hard pill to swallow for the left in general and President Obama in particular, given that from the beginning of his presidency, he has made unconditional negotiations with Iran a central part of his foreign policy.

An Iran deal may indeed serve as President Obama’s only foreign policy legacy in light of the Arab Spring turning to winter, and the increasingly bellicose and unrestrained postures of Russia and China looming large.

Given what we know about Iran, one can only hope that history does not afford Mr. Obama this “legacy.”

03/10/15

Egyptian President Crushes Jihadists While Obama Coddles Them

By: Benjamin Weingarten
TheBlaze

Few Americans would want to live under the rule of General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Egypt’s authoritarian president. But on the other hand, neither would any jihadist.

An Egyptian administrative court recently upheld the nation’s Ministry of Religious Endowment’s decision to shutter 27,000 mosques deemed most supportive of jihadism.

Abdel Fattah Al Sisi, President of Egypt, speaks during the 69th session of the United Nations General Assembly at U.N. headquarters, Wednesday, Sept. 24, 2014. (Credit: AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

Abdel Fattah Al Sisi, President of Egypt, speaks during the 69th session of the United Nations General Assembly at U.N. headquarters, Wednesday, Sept. 24, 2014. (Credit: AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

This marks the latest in a series of steps taken by the Sisi regime to cripple terrorists.

Such actions evince an attitude and approach toward countering the threat of Islamic supremacism entirely counter to that espoused by the Obama administration.

Consider four critical areas in which Presidents Sisi and Obama have taken opposing sides:

Defining the Threat

President Sisi has very publicly criticized Islam — linking it to jihadist destruction and backwardness in the Arab world. President Barack Obama has made every effort to de-link Islam from Islamic terror, arguing that Islam itself, not its reformation, is essential to combating jihadism.

During a December 2014 speech at the seat of Sunni Islamic learning, Al-Azhar University in Cairo, President Sisi stated:

It is inconceivable that the ideology we sanctify should make our entire nation a source of concern, danger, killing, and destruction all over the world. It is inconceivable that this ideology… I am referring not to “religion,” but to “ideology” – the body of ideas and texts that we have sanctified in the course of centuries, to the point that challenging them has become very difficult.

It has reached the point that [this ideology] is hostile to the entire world. Is it conceivable that 1.6 billion [Muslims] would kill the world’s population of seven billion, so that they could live [on their own]? This is inconceivable…You cannot see things clearly when you are locked [in this ideology]. You must emerge from it and look from outside, in order to get closer to a truly enlightened ideology. You must oppose it with resolve. Let me say it again: We need to revolutionize our religion.

In a less-noticed interview with Der Spiegel in February of this year, President Sisi stated:

For 1,400 years, the Koran has represented the absolute truth. But interpretations differ. I propose removing wrong and distorted ideas from the religious discourse.

Contrast this with a seminal speech delivered by President Obama at Al-Azhar University in June 2009, in which he stated that “Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.”

During the recent Countering Violent Extremism Summit, President Obama said:

Al Qaeda and [Islamic State] do draw, selectively, from the Islamic texts. They do depend upon the misperception around the world that they speak in some fashion for people of the Muslim faith, that Islam is somehow inherently violent, that there is some sort of clash of civilizations.

President Obama sees misperception of the Muslim faith in Islamic terror; President Sisi has shown no such illusions.

Moreover, in addition to promoting “jobs for jihadis,” the Obama administration’s agenda for countering jihadism — euphemistically called “violent extremism” — consists largely of a laissez-faire law enforcement and oversight approach to the communities that pose the greatest danger, coupled with millions in funding for likely superficial programs, such as $15 million for the Department of Justice to support “community-led efforts to build resilience and counter violent extremism.”

Acknowledging the Incubator

Among other measures, President Sisi has sought to counter jihadists by attacking them at their source – mosques that espouse Islamic supremacy.

While President Sisi’s Ministry of Religious Endowments has granted 400 preaching permits to Salafist leaders, his move to close down 27,000 mosques — in the world’s most populous Arab country — is as dramatic as it is telling.

Consideration of such a policy would be unthinkable in America, as it would be seen as a violation of religious freedom, even if the facilities in question were to house those espousing anti-social and anti-American acts bordering on treason.

In fact, under President Obama America has taken a diametrically opposed approach: Actively seeking to partner with mosques, and creating significantly tougher standards for surveilling them.

A pillar of the Obama administration’s “countering violent extremism” policy is to engage more closely with Islamic communities and their leaders, i.e. imams.

The administration holds up as one of its outreach models a pilot program in Boston. The group said to be serving as primary liaison with the federal government is the Islamic Society of Boston. Problematic is the fact that the group has been linked to jihadists and jihadist-sympathizers, and was reportedly funded by Saudi and other Gulf sources to the tune of over $8.6 million. 

As mentioned in an earlier piece, the Mapping Sharia project indicates that imams in over 80 percent of 100 randomly surveyed American mosques recommend the study of violence-positive texts. Given the large percentage of mosques that fit this profile, it stands to reason that the federal government is likely partnering with some of these very institutions.

Recognizing the Aims of the Muslim Brotherhood

During the Arab Spring, President Obama tacitly supported Hosni Mubarak’s ouster — effectively backing the favored candidate of the Muslim Brotherhood — Mohamed Morsi.

Among General Sisi’s first acts upon deposing Mr. Morsi was to ban the Muslim Brotherhood. When asked whether Islamic State or the Muslim Brotherhood posed a greater threat, Sisi responded:

They both share the same ideology. But the Muslim Brotherhood is the origin of all of it. All these other extremists emanated from them.

Such a statement – or even the sentiment — has never flowed from President Obama’s lips.

President Obama has instead actively embraced members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Obama administration recently invited Muslim Brotherhood-linked leaders to the White House, and the State Department hosted a Muslim Brotherhood delegation, much to the chagrin of the Egyptians. 

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have declared the Brotherhood a terrorist group, but the White House declined a petition that would have similarly given it such a designation in the United States.

Views of Israel and Iran

Egypt has become a key partner with Israel in fighting jihadists by dint of recognizing a common enemy in the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies in Gaza.

Under President Sisi, Egypt reportedly sealed off 95 percent of the Hamas terror tunnels under Egypt’s border with Gaza, and demolished thousands of homes to create a massive buffer zone in the Sinai, to the benefit of both Egypt and Israel.

Furthermore, Egypt believes – as does Israel – that Iran is a true threat to regional stability – especially if Iran succeeds in acquiring nuclear weaponry.

Conversely, President Obama has desperately sought to cast Iran – which has been at war with the United States since 1979 — as a worthy ally. Perhaps because of this, the president has worked with abandon to publically denigrate Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu leading up to and following the congressional address in which Netanyahu explained the threat posed by a nuclear Iran. The politicization and histrionics displayed by Democrats regarding Netanyahu’s speech speaks volumes in showing how far U.S.-Israel relations have fallen under the Obama administration.

Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post summarizes the relationships between Egypt, Israel and the United States accordingly:

Israel’s ability to take effective action against Hamas in concert with Egypt is hampered by the Obama administration that is insisting that Israel facilitate the Hamas’s rearmament – a development that threatens Israel and Egypt alike.

And Israel isn’t alone in its plight. Egypt is also being pressured by President Barack Obama and his administration.

In its war against Sunni and Shiite jihadist forces that threaten to destroy Egypt, and among other things, cause mass harm to the global economy by imperiling maritime traffic, Egypt finds itself betrayed by the Obama administration.

…Today Israel’s closest ally is Egypt. Under Obama, the U.S. is a force to be worked around, not worked with.

***

None of these points are presented in order to romanticize President Sisi’s rule.

He is an authoritarian overseeing a military regime that crushes its opponents as a means of survival.

Further, as Dr. Andrew Bostom has noted, President Sisi’s strident rhetoric on Islam has not matched his past words and deeds. For example, Bostom writes:

While Sisi was “ambiguous”/“apologetic” in his romanticized 2006 view of the (Shariah totalitarian, jihad promoting) Caliphate system as an idealized form of Islamic governance, he was unequivocal in his denunciation of precisely the kind of secular consensus, tolerant form of rule Egypt requires if it is ever going to make its Coptic Christian minority, and truly secular leaning Muslims, equal members of the society. Sisi rejected that pursuit in 2006, and his government’s actions under his aegis—a continuing campaign against freedom of conscience, coupled to ongoing “blasphemy” prosecutions—pace soothing “rhetoric”—indicate he meant what he articulated then.

Certainly, President Sisi’s regime is illiberal, violent and generally antithetical to Western values.

Nevertheless, when it comes to fighting jihadism, President Sisi looks like a paragon of moral clarity compared with the putative leader of the free world, Barack Obama.

There are few sadder commentaries on the current state of American leadership than this.

02/26/15

Interview of Interest With a Top Sharia Lawyer from Iran

By: Benjamin Weingarten
TheBlaze


Purchase at Amazon.com

This afternoon I had the chance to interview a top Sharia lawyer from Iran — Daniel Akbari, author of the recent book Honor Killing — on all things Islam.

I found the conversation to be eye-opening and insightful, and think you might too.

Should you be interested, below are the links to the full interview and some pertinent short clips.

And if this kind of thing interests you, please subscribe to my books/ideas podcast: [iTunes, Soundcloud].

Full Interview

“‘Moderate’ Muslims Are the Backbone of Jihad”: An Interview With a Top Sharia Lawyer from Iran [iTunes, Soundcloud

Clips

02/18/15

10 Troubling Aspects of President Obama’s ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ Summit

By: Benjamin Weingarten
TheBlaze

The White House’s “Countering Violent Extremism” summit is barely underway, yet the message is already clear: the conference is politically correct — and far worse — a charade.

And that is a charitable interpretation.

Its sponsors are engaging in intentional obfuscation (e.g., saying “violent extremism” is the enemy), as well as peddling ineffective and ill-considered policy proposals (more community “empowerment”). The conference will effectively aid and abet America’s increasingly ascendant jihadist foes.

Violent extremism is not an enemy, it’s a euphemism. Terrorism is not an enemy, it’s a tactic.

Reviewing the Obama administration’s summit preview, here are its 10 most disturbing aspects:

1. Contrary to its big government ethos, the Obama administration asserts that national security should be driven by the people, not the state.
Image source: BuzzFeed

(Image source: BuzzFeed)

According to the White House preview [emphasis mine]:

Really at the core of our approach is that the government does not have all the answers in combatting violent extremism. It is, at its core, a bottom-up approach. It puts communities with civic leaders, with religious authorities, with community power brokers, teachers, health providers, et cetera, in the driver’s seat. They know their citizens best. They are the first line of defense to prevent or counter radicalizing forces that can ultimately lead to violence. And so our approach is to really embrace and empower what local communities can do. So we’ve been working with our federal partners and our local partners to put in place this approach over the past couple of years.

Further:

Again, this is not about government, especially the federal government. The federal government doesn’t have all the answers. This is about building a comprehensive network to fight back against violent extremism. And we are explicitly recognizing the role that civil society plays, the private sector plays, and that families, et cetera, can play in countering violent extremism.

Who knew the Obama administration had so much respect for and faith in civil society?

Yet of course, this faith turns out to be dangerously misplaced as…

2. The groups the president wants to empower are those who may pose the biggest threat.

As Patrick Poole noted in an extensive report for TheBlaze:

In December 2011, the White House issued the “Strategic Implementation Plan for Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States” – the local partners, of course, being Islamic organizations, including those cited by the Justice Department as working to aid foreign terrorist organizations. All national security and law enforcement agencies on the federal, state and local level would now have to consult these groups and rely on “local partners” as a matter of policy. And as made clear in Salam al-Marayati’s Los Angeles Times op-ed, Islamic groups complaining about counter-terrorism policies or training would disrupt government efforts to “counter violent extremism” gave them an implicit veto over counter-terrorism policies. [Los Angels Times link added for context]

Why should we care about this 2011 report?

A senior Obama administration official noted in previewing the summit that the report details the very efforts the administration will be hawking during the three-day event.

Local partners such as the Council on American-Islam Relations — an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest Hamas funding trial in history — has advised members of the Muslim community not to work with the FBI, and religious leaders to lawyer up as opposed to working together with law enforcement when it comes to potential jihadists. On the eve of the summit, CAIR is reportedly calling for the Department of Justice to “protect those who act in good faith to prevent violent extremism by engaging with [Muslims] considering it in order to dissuade them.”

A partner of perhaps higher standing is the Islamic Society of Boston (ISB), a group linked to numerous jihadis and jihadi-sympathizers, that is reportedly the primary liaison between the Muslim community and law enforcement in countering violent extremism. The Boston  program will be one of the three held up as a success story during the summit, despite the ISB’s Islamic supremacist efforts.

Looking to the heart of Muslim communities, according to the Mapping Sharia project, imams in over 80 percent of 100 randomly surveyed representative mosques in America recommended the study of violence-positive texts. The correlations with these texts are disturbing, as illustrated below:

Sharia Adherence Mosque Survey: Correlations between Sharia Adherence and Violent Dogma in U.S. Mosques (Image Source: http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/sharia-adherence-mosque-survey/html)

(Image Source: Sharia Adherence Mosque Survey: Correlations between Sharia Adherence and Violent Dogma in U.S. Mosques)

In Pew’s extensive 2011 report on Muslims in America, 21 percent of those polled indicated there was a great deal or fair amount of “support for extremism among Muslim American;” 19 percent did not indicate that “suicide bombing/other violence against civilians is justified to defend Islam from its enemies;” only 70 percent indicated that they viewed Al Qaeda “very unfavorably.”

As leaked Department of Homeland Security documents reveal, the second highest concentration of people designated as “known or suspected terrorists” by our government reside in Dearborn, Michigan. Dearborn’s population is 96,000, and it has the highest percentage of Arab-Americans of any city in the country.

In light of these figures, and the fact that jihadist groups worldwide claim they are at war with America, having committed over 25,000 attacks in the name of Allah since Sept. 11, 2011, one must ask, what exactly is the rationale behind leaving self-policing to Muslim communities when these are the very places from whence jihadists spring?

Such a policy of course is only baffling if you are of the belief that jihad is an Islamic tenet, and that Islamic supremacist ideology is what animates the vast majority of the world’s “violent extremists.”

But of course…

3. According to the administration there is no profile of a “violent extremist.”

Returning to the transcript:

[I]n the United States there has been violent extremists that come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, and so the agenda for all three days is going to show a wide array of speakers and participants from all backgrounds who combat radicalization, violent extremism and terrorism in its many forms.

…In terms of the phrase “vulnerable community,” I think one is that we want to be clear that the evidence doesn’t show that there’s any particular community, there’s no profile that we can point to say this person is from this community, is going to be radicalized to violence.

4. The administration thinks a key focus should be on non-Muslim terrorist groups — like those in Colombia.

Per the preview:

Q:  I’m just wondering, in light of the current events that Andrea Mitchell and others mentioned during this call, almost all of those involves Muslim extremism. And I get that the phrase for this three-day event is “violent extremism.” Might some critics think that you’re avoiding the world “Muslim” as though extremists in the Islamic communities are the focus — or are they not the focus? That’s my question.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  …I think obviously we want to be taking into account the current concerns that different countries are facing. But as I think will be clear from the variety of presentations and case studies that are mentioned — to include some of the media that we have organized to help catalyze the discussion that features some of the longer-running terrorist threats that people sometimes forget about in the current context, such as the FARC in Colombia, which is now in negotiations, but has been a designated terrorist organization for some time, responsible for countless acts of violence.

I think we will see through the complexity of the discussion that violent extremism is a broader trend…I think we’ll see in the context of the meeting itself the diversity that reflects the reality of recent history.

5. The administration disavows a link between jihadism — a word it won’t use — and religion.
This image made from a video released Sunday Feb. 15, 2015 by militants in Libya claiming loyalty to the Islamic State group purportedly shows Egyptian Coptic Christians in orange jumpsuits being led along a beach, each accompanied by a masked militant. Later in the video, the men are made to kneel and one militant addresses the camera in English before the men are simultaneously beheaded. The Associated Press could not immediately independently verify the video. (Image source: AP)

This image made from a video released Sunday Feb. 15, 2015 by militants in Libya claiming loyalty to the Islamic State group purportedly shows Egyptian Coptic Christians in orange jumpsuits being led along a beach, each accompanied by a masked militant. Later in the video, the men are made to kneel and one militant addresses the camera in English before the men are simultaneously beheaded. The Associated Press could not immediately independently verify the video. (Image source: AP)

Per the administration preview:

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Let’s be clear. We recognize that violent extremism spans many decades and has taken many forms. But we all agree that the individuals who perpetuated — who perpetrated the terrorist attacks in Paris and elsewhere are calling themselves Muslims and their warped interpretation of Islam is what motivated them to commit these acts. They’re not making any secret of that, and neither are we.

But we are very, very clear that we do not believe that they are representing Islam. There is absolutely no justification for these attacks in any religion, and that’s the view of the vast majority of Muslims who have suffered huge casualties from the likes of folks like ISIL or al Qaeda. So you can call them what you want. We’re calling them terrorists.

6. The administration continues its “mea culpa” campaign, attributing radicalism to economic, social and political disparities — but not religion.

Per the White House preview [emphasis mine]:

The final panel will focus on secure and resilient communities, and it will, in particular, begin by looking at the role of civil society, particularly youth and women preventing violent extremism. It will look at community-police relations and community-security force relations as a critical element of prevention. And it will finally broaden that conversation to address social, economic and political marginalization, including the effects of integration of minority communities.

Based on all we have observed from this White House, do you think that the onus will fall on law enforcement to work on “improving relations” with “violent extremist” communities, or vice-versa? Reports on the Minneapolis countering violent extremism pilot program, one of the three that will be presenting at the summit, indicate that its Somali Muslim community mistrusts law enforcement because it fears being spied upon. Does this give you confidence in cooperation from a neighborhood that has produced over a dozen known jihadists in recent years?

The notion that “marginalization” and poor integration in minority communities is the root cause of jihadism, as echoed by State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf is a canard. Not only are there very wealthy families from the bin Ladens to the Saudi royals who drive jihadism worldwide, but conversely practically every group that has ever succeeded in America came to this country poor and marginalized, yet did not resort to strapping bombs to themselves or chopping off heads.

None of this is even to mention the fact that Muslims, other ethnic and religious minorities and the most important minority, the individual, has at least historically had more freedom and opportunity in America than in any other country in the world. Perhaps the White House wishes this forum to be a vehicle for revisiting Ferguson.

7. The administration wants to rehabilitate and reintegrate violent extremists.

Clearly the recidivism rate for Guantanamo Bay detainees has not sunk in to the collective mind of the public, as the White House continues:

The third session focuses on weakening the legitimacy and the resonance of the brand of violent extremism. So that will include a panel on strategic communications, social media. It will include a discussion of how non-violent religious issues and education can be elevated as a matter of international and local-level concern. And it will look at best practices with regard to rehabilitating and reintegrating violent extremists.

Note that this is also in keeping with the Obama administration’s efforts through Eric Holder’s Justice Department to treat terrorism as a criminal matter.

8. The Obama White House has regularly partnered with and enabled ”violent extremists,” without whom a countering violent extremism summit would not be necessary in the first place.

One of the more unbelievable indications of the Obama administration’s willful lack of self-awareness is that it has regularly partnered with the “violent extremists,” aiders, abetters and sympathizers with whom theoretically this summit is about countering.

The administration is currently negotiating with Iran on its nuclear program — the largest state sponsor of terror in the world.

Several weeks ago the White House met with the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization whose 1991 strategic memorandum on North America called for a “grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

In Libya and Syria we have armed jihadists to our own great detriment.

How can a president who so frequently makes common cause with, and whose interventions overseas have so consistently aided jihadists, have any credibility in countering violent extremism?

9. The summit’s very name tells us how fatally flawed the exercise is.

Little exemplifies better how ill-equipped America is to deal with the threats facing her than the fact that the Obama administration wants us to believe that we are fighting “violent extremism.”

Violent extremism is not an enemy, it’s a euphemism. Terrorism is not an enemy, it’s a tactic.

As many have said in recent weeks, if you cannot identify your enemy, you cannot defeat it. By not having the moral clarity, or even worse by exhibiting such cowardice in creating a mushy phrase like “violent extremism,” which not only obscures the enemy from the American people, but allows the Obama administration to associate all sorts of other peoples with jihadists is shameful.

Islamic supremacists are at war with us. It is quite evident we are not at war with them.

10. Finally, the key issues crucial to understanding the nature of, and means of best countering Islamic supremacism are not going to be addressed.

Were the summit actually to identify Islamic supremacism as the enemy, as the Center for Security Policy’s recent Defeat Jihad Summit illustrated, we might examine issues among many others including:

  • The Islamic doctrine that animates jihadists both Shitte and Sunni, and the goals, tactics and strategies set forth therein
  • The global funding of the jihadist support architecture
    • Activist groups
    • Educational institutions including America’s Middle East studies departments
    • Media organizations
    • Mosques
    • Other agents of influence
  • Jihadist infiltration of American political institutions
  • The undefended borders through which jihadists are surely entering
  • Legal immigration policies including visas for religious leaders, student visas and immigration from jihadist areas worldwide
  • Iran’s efforts to infiltrate South America
  • Radicalization in prisons

We should seriously consider the aforementioned 1991 Muslim Brotherhood memorandum on its mission in North America:

The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack. But, would the slackers and the Mujahedeen be equal.

…A mission as significant and as huge as the settlement mission needs magnificent and exhausting efforts. With their capabilities, human, financial and scientific resources, the Ikhwan will not be able to carry out this mission alone or away from people and he who believes that is wrong, and God knows best. As for the role of the Ikhwan, it is the initiative, pioneering, leadership, raising the banner and pushing people in that direction. They are then to work to employ, direct and unify Muslims’ efforts and powers for this process. In order to do that, we must possess a mastery of the art of “coalitions”, the art of “absorption” and the principles of “cooperation.”