It’s been a week
since America witnessed the horrifying massacre in Orlando and what a week it’s
been.
While the corpses of
innocents lay strewn across the floor of the Pulse nightclub, our betters at The New York Times editorial board wasted no time in
blaming “American politics” for the rampage.
Jumping to ridiculous conclusions, as is their wont, the board declared
the assassin “was driven by hatred toward gays and lesbians.”
The World’s Most Dangerous Community Organizer who promised
hope and change never seemed so small and hopeless as when he launched into his
invective following a meeting of the National Security Council:
“For a while now, the
main contribution of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have
made in the fight against ISIL is to criticize this administration and me for
not using the phrase ‘radical Islam.’ That's the key, they tell us. We can't
beat ISIL unless we call them radical Islamists.”
“What exactly would
using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL
less committed to trying to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is
there a military strategy that is served by this?”
“The answer is none
of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away.
This is a political distraction.”
“Not once has an
adviser of mine said, ‘Man, if we really use that phrase, we're going to turn
this whole thing around.’ Not once.”
One day after the
carnage an avalanche of evidence emerged which made it clear the Orlando killer
was a jihadist—a radical Islamic
terrorist—and yet he stubbornly clutches at pearls like gun control as he
defiantly soft pedals links to Islam.
I remember well when
ISIS burned alive in a cage Jordanian pilot First Lt. Moaz al-Kasasbeh while
King Abdullah was visiting Washington.
The release of the horrifying video prompted the king to cut short his
visit and return to Jordan amid revulsion and outrage for the grisly killing.
In Syria, the
government denounced the group that has been fighting it for months, but so did
al-Qaeda fighters who oppose both the government and the Islamic State.
In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian government for
once agreed on something, the barbarity of the militant group for the way it
murdered the Jordanian. And in Cairo,
Grand Imam Ahmed al-Tayeb, the head of the 1,000-year-old Al Azhar institute,
was so angered that he called for the Islamic State’s extremists to be “killed,
or crucified, or their hands and legs cut off.”
Contrast the king’s
reaction to that of the current occupant of the Oval Office who took exactly 7 minutes to make his way from
the podium to his golf cart following his Martha’s Vineyard vacation press
conference to speak of James Foley’s beheading at the hands of ISIS terrorists.
He spent the rest of
the afternoon on the links even as a firestorm of criticism erupted over what
many saw as a callous indifference to the slaughter he had just condemned.
Use of the word
“Islamophobia” is a potent weapon the Left uses as a cudgel to terminate
rational discussion about radical Islamic terrorism. On September 25, 2012 while addressing the
67th session of the United Nations General Assembly, The World’s Most Dangerous
Community Organizer uttered these words:
“The future
must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”
From Judicial Watch we learn that since 2009, at least seven
Islamists (the Tsarnaevs, Muhammad, Zazi, Hassan, Abdulmutallab, Shahzad) have
attempted to conduct attacks in the United States— undetected by either the law
enforcement or intelligence communities. Likewise, Muslim political pressure
and community groups have failed to identify, warn authorities or interdict
these terrorists. In 2011, as the Obama administration was carrying out the
training curricula purge demands of groups like CAIR, the Russian government
was, without success, warning the FBI about Boston Bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev.
Certain terms and—in
basic Islamic history, as well as the language/publications of the terrorists
themselves—have been removed from US government law enforcement and
intelligence records. Why? Whose interests are served by not using accurate
language to describe the actions of persons attacking US persons and property?
Who wishes the historical record to be revised in such a way as to deny facts?
Why would America’s leadership seek to ignore almost 1,400 years of history? If
“sensitivity” to Islam is a concern, why would we seek to deny the teachings of
Islam and its historical conquests—from medieval Spain to Indonesia, and
beyond? Isn’t such a denial “insensitive”?
If government
officials are forbidden to use terms such as jihad and Islamist, how
can they ever hope to conduct the fact-driven analysis required to comprehend
and act upon threat information?
The Judicial Watch report continues, “The
Obama administration has also taken strong action to combat anything deemed
insensitive to Muslims. Whatever the broader motives of the Obama political
operatives, this desire to eliminate “insensitivity” is, in large part, rooted
in fear—fear of terror attacks, violence, provocations, “days of rage,” burned
consulates and protests. American leaders engage in self-censorship out of
fear—pretending it is ‘tolerance” and “respect.’ They ironically proclaim that
‘intolerance’ is intolerable and must be eliminated. Consistent with this
fear-based approach, in December 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
hosted a three-day, closed-door, international ‘Istanbul Process’ conference on
measures to combat religious ‘intolerance, negative stereotyping and
stigmatization’ saying our government would use “old-fashioned techniques of
peer pressure and shaming” against Islamophobia.
Two months prior to
Hillary’s “conference”, 57 Muslim groups sent a letter to the White House
demanding the “purge” of all counterterrorism training materials and
“re-education” of all FBI agents exposed to “Islamophobic” training.
In September of 2012
the Obama administration blamed attacks on the US Embassy in Cairo and the
“Special Mission Compound” in Benghazi on a YouTube™ video. That same month, Obama repeats the YouTube™
video lie to the UN General Assembly saying, “The future does not belong to
those who slander the prophet of Islam.”
His lies to the world emboldened the Organization of Islamic Conference
(OIC) to push through a blasphemy resolution at the UN claiming that the video
was part of a larger anti-Islam conspiracy.
The Obama
administration, according to Judicial
Watch, has been penetrated by Islamist influence operators, seeking to
advance an ideological agenda completely at odds with our constitutional
system. The penetration is, in many cases, by the Obama administration’s
invitation. Some of the more public and controversial figures associated with
the Obama administration have included:
Rashad Hussain—US Special Envoy to the Organization of
Islamic Conference with connections to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Huma Abedin—Long-time personal aide to former Secretary
of State Hillary Rodham Clinton
Daliah Mogahed—Advisor to the White House Office of
Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships and an unapologetic defender of
unindicted terrorist conspirator organizations such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations
(CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).
Momamed Elibiary—An Islamic cleric named to the president’s
Homeland Security Advisory Council with close ties to radical Islamist causes
and a prime mover behind normalizing relations with domestic and foreign
Islamist groups. He reportedly leaked
sensitive intelligence documents to a media outlet as part of the “Islamophobia
influence campaign.”
Mohamed Magid—Executive Director of the All Dulles Area
Muslim Society (ADAMS), outside Washington, DC and President of the ISNA, an
unindicted terrorist conspirator organization. Magid was appointed by President
Obama to the Department of Homeland Security’s Countering Violent Extremism
Working Group. From that position, Magid was key in influencing and directing
the purge of training materials and policies in the FBI and other federal agencies.
Magid is a regular visitor to the White House, and extremely influential on
Islamic issues in the Obama administration.
On September 20, 2015
Chuck Todd interviewed
Donald Trump, Ben Carson and John Kasich on Meet
The Press following the Republican Presidential Debate from the Reagan
Presidential Library.
CHUCK TODD: Let me wrap this up
by finally dealing with what's been going on, Donald Trump, and a deal with a
questioner that claimed that the president was Muslim. Let me ask you the
question this way: Should a President's faith matter? Should your faith matter
to voters?
DR. BEN CARSON: Well, I guess it
depends on what that faith is. If it's inconsistent with the values and
principles of America, then of course it should matter. But if it fits within
the realm of America and consistent with the Constitution, no problem.
CHUCK
TODD: So do you believe
that Islam is consistent with the constitution?
DR.
BEN CARSON: No,
I don't, I do not.
CHUCK
TODD: So you--
DR. BEN CARSON: I would not advocate
that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with
that.
