The Front Page Cover
2016 The truth will set you free
Featuring:
nObama and the Moderate Muslims
by Caroline Glick
~~~
. GOP Seeks to Thread the 2A Needle
After four gun measures failed in the Senate on Monday, several senators announced a compromise Tuesday on which they seek a vote Thursday. Essentially, this new bill bars individuals on the FBI's "no-fly" and "selectee" (i.e., additional screening required) lists from purchasing firearms. People on the broader watch list at any point in the last five years could still buy guns, but the FBI would be notified.
"We are not finished with this war on terrorism," said bill co-author Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ). "We want to help prevent future attacks while also protecting people's constitutional rights. We feel like we thread the needle as best as we can." However, the NRA and Gun Owners of America oppose the proposal for not doing enough to protect Second and Fifth Amendment rights. So here's the bottom line:
A horrific terrorist assault elevated this issue. The attack and how we deal with it should be about Islamist terrorism, not guns. But Democrats, as they always do, changed the subject to guns, so Republicans face a PR problem during a big election year. Unfortunately for the GOP, all most Americans are going to hear from the Democrats' Leftmedia super PAC is that "Republicans want terrorists to buy guns." That's nothing more than jackass braying, but a significant portion of the public will remember it.
Yet there does need to be clarity on the terrorist watch lists. How are people put on it? If wrongly so, how do they get off the list? What constitutes sufficient evidence, and which side has to provide it, for denying constitutional rights? Remember, these are people put on lists by bureaucrats; they have not been convicted of any crime. And we all know that bureaucrats can act in an arbitrary and capricious manner. The compromise bill puts the "burden of proof" on the attorney general, but that doesn't ease all concern. Republicans have so far outmaneuvered Democrats and are trying to keep the focus on terrorism. After all, France has some pretty tough gun control laws that didn't save a single life in Paris last year. Note: Contact your U.S. senators today.
-The Patriot Post
.
Russian Hackers Infiltrated liar-Clinton
Foundation Computers The Russian government obviously thinks understanding the inner workings of the liar-Clinton Foundation is one of the keys to understanding — and potentially manipulating — liar-Hilly Clinton. Russian hackers have been busy this season in American politics. For at least seven months, they've been targeting about 4,000 people and organizations involved with American politics. The liar-Clinton Foundation is essentially the who's who of people who attempted to influence the liar-Clinton machine with wads of cash and revelations disclosed from leaked documents could further implicate liar-Clinton in corruption. At very least, it shows how embarrassingly amateur it was to keep the secret communications of a secretary of state on an unsecured email server. If liar-Clinton can't keep her valued documents from blowing all over the Internet, how good is she at diplomacy really?
This comes on the heels of the news that Russian hackers were able to penetrate the Democrat National Committee's computer system and scrape up the opposition file it has against Donald Trump. As for the liar-Clinton Foundation, it was unaware of the hack. The federal government, which has been investigating the hacking activity, found the breach. Bloomberg reported, "liar-Clinton Foundation officials said the organization hadn't been notified of the breach and declined to comment further" — what a liar-Clintonesque statement.
For the DNC's part, it's running damage control by saying, in an effort to generate sympathy, that hackers leaking DNC documents could shape the course of the 2016 election. It's not too much to conclude that the liar-Clinton Foundation keeps some of liar-Clinton's sordid secrets, and now the Russians have them. -The Patriot Post
.
liar-Hilly Can't Best Trump's Economic Platform liar-Hilly Clinton attacked Donald Trump's plan to improve the economy, with a Tuesday speech high on rhetorical zingers and low on examples of her own economic prowess. Trump didn't have enough detail in his job creation plan, liar-Clinton complained, "But maybe we shouldn't expect better from someone whose famous words are: 'You're fired.'"
Hilarious coming from a woman who made her fortune penning books, giving speeches and peddling influence — pastimes of the liberal elite. At least Trump created jobs.
liar-Clinton's speech tried to paint Trump as "dangerous," a bull in the China shop of the American economy. "Just like he shouldn't have his finger on the button, he shouldn't have his hands on our economy," liar-Clinton declared. But as commentator Ashe Schow points out, liar-Clinton has a long record of using public money and her status to make herself and her family rich. Is she really the best advocate for the American middle class? It was just a few weeks ago where she admitted her policies would make coal miners lose their jobs.
As for liar-Clinton's plan to get this nObama economy roaring back to life, liar-Clinton suggested — what else? — massive government spending on the nation's infrastructure. But as Jim Geraghty points out, it's not like nObama didn't try that same trick in 2012 with $102 billion in roadway funding ("the largest new investment in our nation's infrastructure since Eisenhower") — and look where that got us. liar-Clinton proposes nothing new. If she were to become president, expect four more years of dismal economic growth in a continuation of the nObama-liar-Clinton stagnation. -The Patriot Post
.
.
Memo Reveals liar-Clinton Foundation Donor’s
$100 Million Registration, Turnout Push
by Lachlan Markay
.
Hansjorg Wyss
.
{freebeacon.com} ~ A Swiss billionaire and seven-figure liar-Clinton Foundation donor is pouring millions of dollars into a nonprofit voter registration and turnout operation... and appears to have shared information about the project with the Democratic Party, a leaked document reveals. Hansjörg Wyss is accelerating a $100 million registration and get-out-the-vote plan in order to more quickly impact elections and the U.S. policy landscape, according to a document detailing the proposed work by his charitable group, the Wyss Foundation. The document details the scope of Democratic efforts to boost grassroots organizing, and sheds light on how some of the left’s deepest pockets are facilitating those efforts through nonprofit vehicles generally restricted to charitable activity...This money cannot be legal for a number of reasons. Wyss does not even have a green card to hide behind to make it plausible. Where is the DOJ or the Federal Elections Commission? Missing in inaction, as usual.
{freebeacon.com} ~ A Swiss billionaire and seven-figure liar-Clinton Foundation donor is pouring millions of dollars into a nonprofit voter registration and turnout operation... and appears to have shared information about the project with the Democratic Party, a leaked document reveals. Hansjörg Wyss is accelerating a $100 million registration and get-out-the-vote plan in order to more quickly impact elections and the U.S. policy landscape, according to a document detailing the proposed work by his charitable group, the Wyss Foundation. The document details the scope of Democratic efforts to boost grassroots organizing, and sheds light on how some of the left’s deepest pockets are facilitating those efforts through nonprofit vehicles generally restricted to charitable activity...This money cannot be legal for a number of reasons. Wyss does not even have a green card to hide behind to make it plausible. Where is the DOJ or the Federal Elections Commission? Missing in inaction, as usual.
.
Did Muhammad Tell Us to Love One Another?
.
{answeringmuslims.com} ~ Recently, Utah Lieutenant Governor Spencer Cox gave a speech that’s become quite popular. In the speech, Cox says... Ultimately, there is only one way for us to come together. It must happen at a personal level. We must learn to truly love one another. The Prophet Muhammad is reported to have said: "You will not enter paradise until you believe, and you will not believe until you love one another." Jesus said, "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you."While it may be comforting, following a tragedy, to think that Muhammad commanded people to love one another, is this what Muhammad actually meant? Let's take a closer look... http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2016/06/did-muhammad-tell-us-to-love-one.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+answeringmuslims%2FynNl+%28Answering+Muslims%29
.
Something liar-Hilly and Trump Should Agree On
by Hugh Turley
.
.
{aim.org} ~ Both presidential candidates liar-Hilly Clinton and Donald Trump could agree that something is “fishy” about the latest media coverage about the death of Vince Foster on July 20, 1993... A news story in the British Daily Mail on June 2nd seemed designed to attract a right-wing audience by blaming Mrs. liar-Clinton for the suicide of Foster. The “exclusive” story by Ronald Kessler claimed liar-Hilly “attacked and humiliated Foster in front of other White House aides a week before he took his own life.” The story quickly spread among conservative news outlets and was repeated by Rush Limbaugh. No one bothered to verify if the story was true. At the time of the alleged humiliation of Foster, one week before his death, Mrs. liar-Clinton was traveling in Asia and Hawaii...
.
Ryano: No vote on gun bills that ignore due process
by Pete Kasperowicz
.
.
{washingtonexaminer.com} ~ House Speaker Paul Ryano on Wednesday night dismissed the Democratic takeover of the House floor as a "publicity stunt," and said Republicans wouldn't be goaded into allowing a vote on bills that violate the Constitution... "We're not going to take away a citizen's constitutional rights without due process," he said on CNN. Democrats want the GOP to allow a vote on bills to expand background checks, and to prevent people from buying a gun if they are on an federal terrorism watch list. But Republicans say those lists are created without giving the people on those lists any chance to defend themselves... http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ryan-no-vote-on-gun-bills-that-ignore-due-process/article/2594655
.
Osama bin Laden's body guard transferred
out of Guantanamo Bay
by Anna Giaritelli
.
.
{washingtonexaminer.com} ~ A Guantanamo Bay detainee who had been in federal custody for 14 years has been transferred to Montenegro, according to a statement from the Pentagon late Wednesday... "The United States is grateful to the Government of Montenegro for its humanitarian gesture and willingness to support ongoing U.S. efforts to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility," the Pentagon said. "The United States coordinated with the Government of Montenegro to ensure this transfer took place consistent with appropriate security and humane treatment measures." Yemeni citizen Malik Ahmed Abdel Wahab al-Rahabi arrived at the naval base in Cuba back in 2002 after being accused of serving as a bodyguard for the late al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden...Didn't congress stop the transfer of detainees? http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2594686
.
65% of all terror convicts were foreign born,
half from Muslim nations
by Paul Bedard
.
.
{washingtonexaminer.com} ~ Over 65 percent of those convicted in U.S. courts of terrorism since 9/11 were foreign born, with the bulk of those from Muslim nations and several more who had overstayed their immigration visa... according to Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican. In a release of new government data, he said that at least 380 of the 580 individuals convicted of terrorism or terrorism-related offenses between September 11, 2001 and December 31, 2014, were born outside the United States. But many of the "native" terror convicts were the children of immigrants, a new and growing fear highlighted by the Orlando gay club slayings by the son of an immigrant...
.
Supreme Court Makes Major Decision
On Affirmative Action
by Randy Desoto
.
{westernjournalism.com} ~ The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that it is permissible for the University of Texas to consider race in student admissions... In a 4-3 decision, the court found diversity on campus to be a legitimate institutional goal. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case. “The university has thus met its burden of showing that the admissions policy it used … was narrowly tailored,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion... http://www.westernjournalism.com/breaking-supreme-court-upholds-universitys-diversity-goal-in-student-admissions/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=PostUp&utm_campaign=WJDailyEmail&utm_content=2016-06-23
{westernjournalism.com} ~ The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that it is permissible for the University of Texas to consider race in student admissions... In a 4-3 decision, the court found diversity on campus to be a legitimate institutional goal. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case. “The university has thus met its burden of showing that the admissions policy it used … was narrowly tailored,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion... http://www.westernjournalism.com/breaking-supreme-court-upholds-universitys-diversity-goal-in-student-admissions/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=PostUp&utm_campaign=WJDailyEmail&utm_content=2016-06-23
.
Rumsfeld: Trump ‘Absolutely Right’ About
Risks Of Terror Infiltration
by Jack Davis
.
.
{westernjournalism.com} ~ Donald Rumsfeld, the pugnacious, aggressive Secretary of Defense under former President George W. Bush, announced Wednesday his support for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump... Rumsfeld’s action comes as other Bush-era officials have taken positions against the GOP nominee. Rumsfeld, 83, was interviewed by The Daily Mail and voiced wide support for Trump’s policies. He echoed Trump’s comments that widespread resettlement of Syrian refugees into the United States could be a Trojan Horse for terrorists seeking to enter the county. “He’s absolutely right,” Rumsfeld said. “Anyone who thinks the radical Islamists are not going to try to utilize every venue they can find to infiltrate in the United States, and in western European countries, to achieve their goals – these people just don’t get it. … They’ve announced what they’re going to do,” he said...
.
hanoi-Kerry Lying About Refugees To Facilitate Invasion
by Rick Wells
.
.
{rickwells.us} ~ Katherine Herridge sheds light on the fact hanoi-John Kerry is lying to bring acceptance of his and nObama’s Islamic invasion of America, and has Senators Jeff Sessions and Ted Cruz backing her up... CIA Director John Brennan is also warning that terrorists are on their way to America and will be included in the supposed “refugees” from Syria and elsewhere. There is no ambiguity in any of their warnings. hanoi-Kerry’s recent remarks on a Monday dual observance of the made up UN nothing event of “World Refugee Day” and his Islamic partners celebrating Ramadan. He told that partisan crowd and the rest of the world in his remarks, “There is absolutely no evidence, my friends, zero evidence, that refugees that make it through this arduous what’s your favorite color, are you a terrorist process pose any greater threat to our society than the members of any other group.”... http://rickwells.us/experts-officials-kerry-lying-refugees-facilitate-invasion/
.
nObama Vows To Continue Lawless Nullification
Of Immigration Law
by Rick Wells
.
.
{rickwells.us} ~ The Supreme Court let Hussein nObama down. They failed to rule that powers nObama has usurped from a co-equal branch of the federal government, the Legislative Branch, were now his to hold... They refused to validate his rewriting of the Constitution to a more dictator-friendly version. He’s making it clear that this minor setback is not going to stop him from acting like a dictator; it’s who he is. In a press conference nObama is asked by a reporter, “Realistically, what do you see as the risk of deportation for these more than four million people. You say we can’t deport eleven million versus four million and there’s a chunk of time here. The dictator responds, “Well let me just be very clear. What was unaffected by today’s ruling or lack of a ruling is the enforcement priorities that we’ve put in place. And our enforcement priorities that have been laid out by Secretary Jeh Johnson at the Department of Homeland Security are pretty clear.”.. http://rickwells.us/obama-vows-continue-lawless-nullification-immigration-law/
..
nObama and the Moderate Muslims
by Caroline Glick
.
.
{truthrevolt.org} ~ As far as the White House is concerned, Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic’s top reporter, is President Barack nObama’s unofficial mouthpiece.
This was one of the many things we learned from The New York Times in David Samuels’s profile of Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes.
In the course of explaining how Rhodes was able to sell nObama’s nuclear deal with Iran, despite the fact that it cleared Iran’s path to a nuclear arsenal while giving the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism more than a hundred billion dollars, Samuels reported that “handpicked Beltway insiders like Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic... helped retail the administration’s narrative.”
Given his White House-assigned role, Goldberg’s explanation of nObama’s refusal to discuss radical Islam is worthwhile reading. It reflects what nObama wants the public to believe about his position.
On Wednesday Goldberg wrote that in nObama’s view, discussing radical Islam is counterproductive because it harms the moderates who need to stand up to the radicals.
“nObama,” he wrote, “believes that a clash is taking place not between Western and Muslim civilization but within a single civilization, and that Americans are sometimes collateral damage in this fight between Muslim modernizers and Muslim fundamentalists.”
Pointing out that there are Muslim fundamentalists, nObama has argued to Goldberg, will only strengthen them against the modernizers.
Over the past week, prominent conservative commentators have agreed with nObama’s position.
Eli Lake from Bloomberg and Prof. John Yoo writing in National Review, among others, criticized presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump for speaking openly radical Islam. Like Goldberg, they argued that Trump’s outspokenness alienates moderate Muslims.
But what moderate Muslims is nObama trying to help? Consider his treatment of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.
Sisi is without a doubt, the most outspoken and powerful advocate of a moderate reformation of Islam, and of Islamic rejection of jihad, alive today.
Sisi has staked his power and his life on his war to defeat the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic State and jihadist Islam in general.
Sisi speaks openly about the danger of jihadist Islam. In his historic speech before the leading Sunni clerics at Cairo’s Al-Azhar University on January 1, 2015, Sisi challenged the clerics to reform Islam.
Among other things he said, “I address the religious clerics. We have to think hard about what we are facing.... It is inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire Islamic nation to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world.
Impossible! “That thinking – I am not saying ‘religion,’ but ‘thinking’ – that corpus of texts and ideas that we have held sacred over the years, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world!...
“Is it possible that 1.6 billion people Muslims should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants – that is 7 billion – so that they themselves may live? Impossible! “I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You imams are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move...because this Islamic nation is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost – and it is being lost by our own hands.”
Certainly since September 11, 2001, no Muslim leader has issues a clearer call for moderation in Islam than Sisi did in that speech. And he has continued to speak in the manner ever since.
No other Muslim leader of note has put everything on the line as Sisi has to defeat the forces of jihad both on the field and in the mosques.
Moreover, Sisi has put his anti-jihadist belief into action by expanding security cooperation between Egypt and Israel and by bringing the Gulf states into his undeclared alliance with the Jewish state.
He has also acted to end the demonization of Israel in the Egyptian media.
Obviously, supporting Sisi is a no-brainer for a leader who insists that his goal is to empower moderate Muslims. And yet, far from being Sisi’s greatest supporter, nObama opposes him.
Since Sisi led the Egyptian military in overthrowing the nObama-backed Muslim Brotherhood regime as it was poised to transform Egypt into a jihadist terrorist state, nObama has worked to undermine him.
nObama has denied Sisi weapons critical to his fight with ISIS in Sinai. He has repeatedly and consistently chastised Sisi for human rights abuses against radical Islamists who, if permitted to return to power, would trounce the very notion of human rights while endangering the US’s key interests in Middle East.
Then there is Iran.
If nObama fears radical Islam, as Goldberg insists that he does, why did he turn his back on the Green Revolution in 2009? Why did he betray the millions of Iranians who rose up against their Islamist leaders in the hopes of installing a democratic order in Iran where women’s rights, and minority rights are respected? Why did he instead side with the radical, jihadist, terrorism-supporting, nuclear weapons-developing and -proliferating ayatollahs? And why has nObama striven to reach an accommodation with the Iranian regime despite its continued dedication to the destruction of the US? Goldberg’s claim that nObama is interested in empowering Muslim moderates in their fight against radicals doesn’t pass the laugh test.
nObama’s actual schemes for relating to – as opposed to acknowledging, fighting or defeating – the forces of jihad involve empowering those forces at the expense of the moderates who oppose them.
Yes, there are exceptions to this rule – like nObama’s belated assistance to the Kurds in Syria and Iraq. But that doesn’t mean that empowering Islamic jihadists at the expense of moderate Muslims is not nObama’s overarching strategy.
In the case of the Kurds, nObama only agreed to help them after spending years training Syrian opposition forces aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood. It was only after nearly all of those forces cut contact with their American trainers and popped up in al-Qaida-aligned militias that nObama began actively supporting the Kurds.
Then there is his behavior toward American jihadists.
Almost every major jihadist attack on US soil since nObama took office has been carried out by US citizens. But nObama has not countered the threat they pose by embracing American Muslims who reject jihad.
To the contrary, nObama has spent the past seven- and-a-half years empowering radical Muslims and Islamic groups like the pro-Hamas terrorism apologists from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).
This week The Daily Caller reported that MPAC President Salam al-Marayati, is serving as an adviser to the US Department of Homeland Security.
Marayati accused Israel of responsibility for the September 11 attacks on the US, and has called on Muslims not to cooperate with federal counter-terrorism probes. According to the report, Marayati has visited the White House 11 times since 2009.
The Daily Caller also reported that a Syrian immigrant to the US was hired to serve as a member of nObama’s task for on “violent extremism” last year.
Laila Alawa, who joined the task force the day she received US citizenship, referred to the September 11 attacks as an event that “changed the world for good.”
According to the Daily Caller, her task force called for the administration to avoid using the terms “jihad” and “Shari’a” in discussing terrorism – as if nObama needed the tip.
So far from helping Muslim moderates, nObama’s actual policy is to help radical Muslims. In stark opposition to his talking points to Goldberg, since he entered office, nObama has worked to empower radical Muslims in the US and throughout the Middle East at the expense of moderates. Indeed, it is hard to think of an anti-jihad Muslim leader in the US or in the Middle East whom nObama has supported.
The victims in Orlando, San Bernadino, Garland, Amarillo, Boston and beyond are proof that nObama’s actual policies are not making America safer. The rise of ISIS and Iran makes clear that his actual policies are making the world more dangerous.
Maybe if his actual policies were what he claims they are, things might be different today. Maybe White House support for anti-jihadist Muslims combined with a purge of all mention of jihad and related terms from the federal lexicon would be the winning policy. But on its face, it is hard to see how forbidding federal employees from discussing jihadists in relevant terms makes sense.
How can enforcing ignorance of a problem help you to solve it? How does refusing to call out the Islamic extremists that Islamic moderates like the Green revolutionaries and Sisi risk their lives to fight weaken them? How does empowering jihad apologists from CAIR and MPAC help moderate, anti-jihad American Muslims who currently have no voice in nObama’s White House? Eli Lake argued that it was by keeping mum on jihad that then-president George W. Bush and Gen. David Petraeus convinced Sunni tribal leaders in Iraq to join the US in fighting al-Qaida during the surge campaign in 2007-2008.
The same leaders now support ISIS.
A counter-argument to Lake’s is that Bush’s policy of playing down the jihadist doctrine of the likes of al-Qaida had nothing to do with the Sunni chieftains’ decision to side with the US forces.
Rather, they worked with the Americans first because the Americans paid them a lot of money to do so. And second, because they believed the Americans when they said that they would stay the course in Iraq.
They now side with ISIS because they don’t trust America, and would rather live under ISIS rule than under Iranian rule.
In other words, for them, the question wasn’t one of political niceties, but of financial gain and power assessments. And that remains the question that determines their actions today.
In the 15 years since September 11, first under Bush, and since 2009, to a more extreme degree under nObama, the US has refused to name the enemy that fights America with the expressed aim of destroying it.
Maybe, just maybe, this is one of the reasons that the Americans have also failed to truly help anti-jihadist – or moderate – Muslims. Maybe you can’t help one without calling out the other.
This was one of the many things we learned from The New York Times in David Samuels’s profile of Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes.
In the course of explaining how Rhodes was able to sell nObama’s nuclear deal with Iran, despite the fact that it cleared Iran’s path to a nuclear arsenal while giving the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism more than a hundred billion dollars, Samuels reported that “handpicked Beltway insiders like Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic... helped retail the administration’s narrative.”
Given his White House-assigned role, Goldberg’s explanation of nObama’s refusal to discuss radical Islam is worthwhile reading. It reflects what nObama wants the public to believe about his position.
On Wednesday Goldberg wrote that in nObama’s view, discussing radical Islam is counterproductive because it harms the moderates who need to stand up to the radicals.
“nObama,” he wrote, “believes that a clash is taking place not between Western and Muslim civilization but within a single civilization, and that Americans are sometimes collateral damage in this fight between Muslim modernizers and Muslim fundamentalists.”
Pointing out that there are Muslim fundamentalists, nObama has argued to Goldberg, will only strengthen them against the modernizers.
Over the past week, prominent conservative commentators have agreed with nObama’s position.
Eli Lake from Bloomberg and Prof. John Yoo writing in National Review, among others, criticized presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump for speaking openly radical Islam. Like Goldberg, they argued that Trump’s outspokenness alienates moderate Muslims.
But what moderate Muslims is nObama trying to help? Consider his treatment of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.
Sisi is without a doubt, the most outspoken and powerful advocate of a moderate reformation of Islam, and of Islamic rejection of jihad, alive today.
Sisi has staked his power and his life on his war to defeat the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic State and jihadist Islam in general.
Sisi speaks openly about the danger of jihadist Islam. In his historic speech before the leading Sunni clerics at Cairo’s Al-Azhar University on January 1, 2015, Sisi challenged the clerics to reform Islam.
Among other things he said, “I address the religious clerics. We have to think hard about what we are facing.... It is inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire Islamic nation to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world.
Impossible! “That thinking – I am not saying ‘religion,’ but ‘thinking’ – that corpus of texts and ideas that we have held sacred over the years, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world!...
“Is it possible that 1.6 billion people Muslims should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants – that is 7 billion – so that they themselves may live? Impossible! “I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You imams are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move...because this Islamic nation is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost – and it is being lost by our own hands.”
Certainly since September 11, 2001, no Muslim leader has issues a clearer call for moderation in Islam than Sisi did in that speech. And he has continued to speak in the manner ever since.
No other Muslim leader of note has put everything on the line as Sisi has to defeat the forces of jihad both on the field and in the mosques.
Moreover, Sisi has put his anti-jihadist belief into action by expanding security cooperation between Egypt and Israel and by bringing the Gulf states into his undeclared alliance with the Jewish state.
He has also acted to end the demonization of Israel in the Egyptian media.
Obviously, supporting Sisi is a no-brainer for a leader who insists that his goal is to empower moderate Muslims. And yet, far from being Sisi’s greatest supporter, nObama opposes him.
Since Sisi led the Egyptian military in overthrowing the nObama-backed Muslim Brotherhood regime as it was poised to transform Egypt into a jihadist terrorist state, nObama has worked to undermine him.
nObama has denied Sisi weapons critical to his fight with ISIS in Sinai. He has repeatedly and consistently chastised Sisi for human rights abuses against radical Islamists who, if permitted to return to power, would trounce the very notion of human rights while endangering the US’s key interests in Middle East.
Then there is Iran.
If nObama fears radical Islam, as Goldberg insists that he does, why did he turn his back on the Green Revolution in 2009? Why did he betray the millions of Iranians who rose up against their Islamist leaders in the hopes of installing a democratic order in Iran where women’s rights, and minority rights are respected? Why did he instead side with the radical, jihadist, terrorism-supporting, nuclear weapons-developing and -proliferating ayatollahs? And why has nObama striven to reach an accommodation with the Iranian regime despite its continued dedication to the destruction of the US? Goldberg’s claim that nObama is interested in empowering Muslim moderates in their fight against radicals doesn’t pass the laugh test.
nObama’s actual schemes for relating to – as opposed to acknowledging, fighting or defeating – the forces of jihad involve empowering those forces at the expense of the moderates who oppose them.
Yes, there are exceptions to this rule – like nObama’s belated assistance to the Kurds in Syria and Iraq. But that doesn’t mean that empowering Islamic jihadists at the expense of moderate Muslims is not nObama’s overarching strategy.
In the case of the Kurds, nObama only agreed to help them after spending years training Syrian opposition forces aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood. It was only after nearly all of those forces cut contact with their American trainers and popped up in al-Qaida-aligned militias that nObama began actively supporting the Kurds.
Then there is his behavior toward American jihadists.
Almost every major jihadist attack on US soil since nObama took office has been carried out by US citizens. But nObama has not countered the threat they pose by embracing American Muslims who reject jihad.
To the contrary, nObama has spent the past seven- and-a-half years empowering radical Muslims and Islamic groups like the pro-Hamas terrorism apologists from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).
This week The Daily Caller reported that MPAC President Salam al-Marayati, is serving as an adviser to the US Department of Homeland Security.
Marayati accused Israel of responsibility for the September 11 attacks on the US, and has called on Muslims not to cooperate with federal counter-terrorism probes. According to the report, Marayati has visited the White House 11 times since 2009.
The Daily Caller also reported that a Syrian immigrant to the US was hired to serve as a member of nObama’s task for on “violent extremism” last year.
Laila Alawa, who joined the task force the day she received US citizenship, referred to the September 11 attacks as an event that “changed the world for good.”
According to the Daily Caller, her task force called for the administration to avoid using the terms “jihad” and “Shari’a” in discussing terrorism – as if nObama needed the tip.
So far from helping Muslim moderates, nObama’s actual policy is to help radical Muslims. In stark opposition to his talking points to Goldberg, since he entered office, nObama has worked to empower radical Muslims in the US and throughout the Middle East at the expense of moderates. Indeed, it is hard to think of an anti-jihad Muslim leader in the US or in the Middle East whom nObama has supported.
The victims in Orlando, San Bernadino, Garland, Amarillo, Boston and beyond are proof that nObama’s actual policies are not making America safer. The rise of ISIS and Iran makes clear that his actual policies are making the world more dangerous.
Maybe if his actual policies were what he claims they are, things might be different today. Maybe White House support for anti-jihadist Muslims combined with a purge of all mention of jihad and related terms from the federal lexicon would be the winning policy. But on its face, it is hard to see how forbidding federal employees from discussing jihadists in relevant terms makes sense.
How can enforcing ignorance of a problem help you to solve it? How does refusing to call out the Islamic extremists that Islamic moderates like the Green revolutionaries and Sisi risk their lives to fight weaken them? How does empowering jihad apologists from CAIR and MPAC help moderate, anti-jihad American Muslims who currently have no voice in nObama’s White House? Eli Lake argued that it was by keeping mum on jihad that then-president George W. Bush and Gen. David Petraeus convinced Sunni tribal leaders in Iraq to join the US in fighting al-Qaida during the surge campaign in 2007-2008.
The same leaders now support ISIS.
A counter-argument to Lake’s is that Bush’s policy of playing down the jihadist doctrine of the likes of al-Qaida had nothing to do with the Sunni chieftains’ decision to side with the US forces.
Rather, they worked with the Americans first because the Americans paid them a lot of money to do so. And second, because they believed the Americans when they said that they would stay the course in Iraq.
They now side with ISIS because they don’t trust America, and would rather live under ISIS rule than under Iranian rule.
In other words, for them, the question wasn’t one of political niceties, but of financial gain and power assessments. And that remains the question that determines their actions today.
In the 15 years since September 11, first under Bush, and since 2009, to a more extreme degree under nObama, the US has refused to name the enemy that fights America with the expressed aim of destroying it.
Maybe, just maybe, this is one of the reasons that the Americans have also failed to truly help anti-jihadist – or moderate – Muslims. Maybe you can’t help one without calling out the other.
Comments