No Tears For Egyptian Christians In A Muslim Brotherhood-Friendly White House

Facebook/Barack Obama

The Obama White House-supported Muslim Brotherhood is at war with Egypt; and as a result, security is tight throughout that nation. The Cairo airport is locked down tight; no one without a ticket to fly can get into the airport terminal. The Egyptians have an understanding that the White House does not – the Muslim Brotherhood will resort to terror if it can’t get what it wants at the ballot box.

Although it is resorting to terror in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood has a formal and lasting relationship with the Obama White House. This is evidenced by a recent visit to the White House by Muslim Brotherhood activists on February 4th. That meeting prompted outcries from the Egyptian government and raised concerns in other Middle East nations that are Muslim Brotherhood targets.

The exact date the Muslim Brotherhood – White House relationship began is not known; however, the Wall Street Journal first reported on Secretary Hillary Clinton “reaching out” to the Muslim Brotherhood in 2011, shortly after the Egyptian government fell to protesters. The relationship must have actually begun much earlier. Clinton’s trusted aide, Huma Mahmood Abedin, had been steadily moving her toward the Muslim Brotherhood.

Abedin at the time was U.S. Deputy Chief of Staff at the State Department and had been a longtime personal aide of Secretary Clinton. Abedin, whose mother and father were deeply involved in the Muslim Brotherhood leadership, convinced Clinton that to “control” the outcome of the Arab Spring and keep governments from falling into extremist hands, the United States must back “moderate” Islamist parties. Of course, her “moderate” solution was the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization that works for the same end result as the Islamic State but is willing to get there at a slower pace.

The Obama/Clinton Grand Strategy for the Middle East was dealt with in depth in a Wall Street Journal article by Walter Russell Mead in 2013. Describing the Grand Strategy, he wrote:

The plan was simple but elegant: The U.S. would work with moderate Islamist groups like Turkey’s AK Party and Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood to make the Middle East more democratic. This would kill three birds with one stone. First, by aligning itself with these parties, the Obama administration would narrow the gap between the ‘moderate middle’ of the Muslim world and the U.S. Second, by showing Muslims that peaceful, moderate parties could achieve beneficial results, it would isolate the terrorists and radicals, further marginalizing them in the Islamic world. Finally, these groups with American support could bring democracy to more Middle Eastern countries, leading to improved economic and social conditions, gradually eradicating the ills and grievances that drove some people to fanatical and terroristic groups.

From the beginning of the Arab Spring, the Muslim Brotherhood was assisted by the Obama White House in taking over nations that had been secular-leaning, including Tunisia and Egypt, under the guiding hand of Hillary Clinton. The attempts in Libya and Syria failed, but those nations are still bleeding as a result. The main victims of the Abedin/ Clinton plan accepted by the Obama White House have been the actual moderates, who are secularists, and, of course, the Christians.

Currently, the only nation under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood is our NATO “ally” Turkey, which is supporting violence against Egypt for casting off the Muslim Brotherhood in 2013 and voting in favor of a more secular government. Turkey also assisted tens of thousands of Sunni Islamist fighters in crossing the border into Syria to war with the secular government there. Still, the Muslim Brotherhood has the full support of the Obama White House.

Rejected by the army and the vast majority of Egyptians, including Coptic Christians, the Muslim Brotherhood has moved from the ballot box to the bullet box to seek power.

MEMRI, a media translation service, recently reported that: “The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood (MB) has recently escalated its statements and activity against the Egyptian regime, to the extent of explicitly calling for using terrorism and violence against it, and even for assassinating President ‘Abd Al-Fattah Al-Sisi. These calls included an MB communique calling on movement activists to prepare for a lengthy and uncompromising jihad and to hunger for a martyr’s death; clear incitement to violence on MB TV channels broadcasting from Turkey.”

The delusional concept that having a “moderate” Muslim Brotherhood in control will somehow restrain “extremism” is alive and well at the White House. A blind eye is turned to the fact that 90% of the jihadists from all over the world going to fight jihad in Syria and Iraq have used Turkey as their entry point. With the Muslim Brotherhood as an ally, it is not possible for the White House to be critical of anything Muslim. This may explain Obama’s empty and duplicitous response to the beheading of 21 Coptic Christians on a beach in Libya by the ISIL.

President Obama could find no religious motivation for the killings at all! His White House issued a statement saying: “The United States condemns the despicable and cowardly murder of twenty-one Egyptian citizens in Libya by ISIL-affiliated terrorists. We offer our condolences to the families of the victims and our support to the Egyptian government and people as they grieve for their fellow citizens. ISIL’s barbarity knows no bounds. It is unconstrained by faith, sect, or ethnicity.”

Well, the Islamic State had tried to make the religious element as clear as they could. They even produced a polished production video showing the 21 Christian men, hands bound behind them, being led one-by-one along a beach to their brutal slaughter. They could be heard crying out “Ya Rabbi Yasou”, which translates as “Lord Jesus!” while others recited the Lord’s Prayer. The video, titled A Message Signed with BLOOD to the Nation of the Cross, is indisputably and intensely religious. The entire production is full of references to the Qur’an and the Hadiths of Muhammad.

In an article concerning the video production, theologian and scholar Dr. Mark Durie wrote: “The whole event was meticulously choreographed and rehearsed.  The video’s obvious purpose is to humiliate and terrorize Christians, whom it derisively calls, ‘The Nation of the Cross.’ Still, Obama could not even bring himself to identify the victims as Christians, referring to them only as ‘citizens.’”

Contrast this evasive response to the quick way he reacted a few days earlier when, during a neighborhood dispute over parking spaces, three Muslims were gunned down. Immediately, President Obama blamed their deaths on religious discrimination, saying that “No one in the United States of America should ever be targeted because of who they are, what they look like, or how they worship.” Had President Obama known then that the killer was an activist atheist and a far left “progressive” Obama fan, he probably would not have said anything.

In the case of the parking lot dispute in which the victims were Muslims, FBI agents were immediately ordered in by President Obama to investigate possible Civil Rights crimes. Yet, when Major Nidal Malik Hasan killed thirteen fellow soldiers plus one unborn baby at Foot Hood in 2009 while shouting “Allah Akbar,” President Obama saw the “crime” as “workplace violence.” Within hours, he asked the nation to be “constrained” and not blame Islam or Muslims for the death toll.

The White House will not even refer to the Islamic State by name and uses the initials ISIL in all official statements. To say the name that the organization calls itself is even taboo at the White House because the word “Islamic” is a part of that name.

The logic for this refusal was made clear by Obama’s Secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, in a Fox News Sunday program on February 22nd.

Johnson said: “To refer to ISIL as occupying any part of the Islamic theology is playing on a battlefield that they would like us to be on. I think that to call them some form of Islam gives the group more dignity than it deserves frankly.” Identifying Islamic terrorists as Islamic gives them “dignity” is the liberal logic.

But the Obama Administration has no problem using the term Christian to identify terrorists even if they are not Christian. State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf on MSNBC must then have given “dignity” to Joseph Kony’s Lord’s Army when she called it a “Christian militant group.” In reality, Kony’s group is a strange mixture of religions including animism. His recognition of Jesus is just about as authentic as the Islamic version of Jesus. Even so, Kony’s army is at most responsible for 1 act of terror for every 10,000 acts of terror by Islamic groups in the world today; this is not to say that he should not be brought to justice quickly.

During his interview on Fox News, Secretary Johnson did let slip the real reason why the Obama Administration does not use the word “Islamic” when describing terror, and where the term “violent extremism” came from. Muslim leaders in the United States don’t want the Obama Administration to refer to Islamic terror as Islamic terror. Johnson said, “The thing I hear from leaders in the Muslim community in this country is, ‘ISIL is attempting to hijack my religion’.”

Because of ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, the Obama Administration is trying to fight the shadow of fundamentalist Islam, which is terror, without identifying what casts that shadow of terror on the world today. A people, a nation that refuses to identify its enemy cannot defeat that enemy. It is not possible to defeat a shadow; the figure that casts the shadow must be defeated. Until there is an administration in Washington, DC, that is willing to identify and fight the enemy of Western civilization, there can be no lasting success.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Breaking: Senate Overturns NLRB ‘Ambush Election’ Regulation


On Tuesday, the Senate passed legislation nullifying a regulation passed by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which would have given companies less time to prepare for a union vote by its workers.

03042015_My NLRB Tweet

The Senate voted 53 to 46 approving S.J. 8 Wednesday. If signed into law, the bill would nullify the so-called ‘ambush election’ regulation passed by the NLRB in December. The regulation, slated to go into effect on April 14, would reduce the time employers have to get ready for a union vote from 38 days to 11 days.



The Hill pointed out the GOP utilized the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to nullify regulations with a simple majority in both chambers. It cannot be filibustered or amended.

The bill was sponsored by Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee. One of the bill’s cosponsors, Sen. David Perdue, R-Ga., praised the bill ahead of the vote in a press release Tuesday.

“My business experience has shown me that both transparency and trust are essential elements of a strong workplace, and the NLRB’s encouragement of ambush union elections undermines both,” Perdue said.

“A majority of Senators have joined to condemn this ruling, and I will work with all of them to make sure that employers and employees alike have the opportunity to work and contribute to our economy without fear of their personal information being exposed, and with a fair shake under the law.”

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., condemned the bill in a floor speech Tuesday. “Instead of talking about how to create jobs and help working families who are struggling, Republicans would rather roll back workers’ rights to gain a voice at the bargaining table,” Murray said.

The White House has signaled that if the bill overturning the ‘ambush election’ comes to President Obama’s desk, he will issue a veto.

 Share this if you’re sick of the Obama administration imposing regulations without oversight.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Liberal Media Commentators Weigh In On Hillary’s Latest Debacle


Hillary Clinton, who desperately wants to be the next president, hit a serious speed bump yesterday with the revelation that she never had an official State Department email account while she was Secretary of State. Instead, she used an unsecured private email account to conduct official business, in violation of government record-keeping laws.

While the use of a private email account isn’t unusual for a Secretary of State, they should only be used for official business when the State Department servers are not working. Even then, the emails should be retained for government record-keeping purposes. Instead, Clinton exclusively used a private email account that is only accessible by her staff, and not by government employees.

This has predictably raised hackles from conservatives and Republicans, but it has also left liberals searching for an explanation as to how an experienced politician like Hillary could do this with a presidential race in her future.

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow said there is a “real question” as to who is making the decisions about what records to release from Clinton’s tenure at the State Department. Her colleague, Lawrence O’Donnell, had stronger words, calling Clinton’s actions a “stunning breach of security” for Secretary of State.

Morning Joe’s Mika Brzezinski said it was “ridiculous,” and former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told the Today show’s Matt Lauer that he couldn’t honestly give him one good reason as to why Clinton did that, and said it was “highly unusual.”

Trying to do some damage control, Clinton spokesperson Nick Merrill released the following statement today:

Like Secretaries of State before her, she used her own email account when engaging with any Department officials. For government business, she emailed them on their Department accounts, with every expectation they would be retained. When the Department asked former Secretaries last year for help ensuring their emails were in fact retained, we immediately said yes.

Both the letter and spirit of the rules permitted State Department officials to use non-government email, as long as appropriate records were preserved. As a result of State’s request for our help to make sure they in fact were, that is what happened here. As the Department stated, it is in the process of updating its record preservation policies to bring them in line with its retention responsibilities.

So just because she emailed people to their government accounts, she’s covered? I don’t think so.

Coming on the heels of the revelations that the Clinton Foundation has been accepting money from foreign governments and routinely approved Bill Clinton’s speaking engagements without putting them through an ethical review, this only adds to the woes of a campaign that hasn’t been officially announced, but may now be mortally wounded.

This article originally appeared at and is reprinted here with permission.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Benjamin Netanyahu, The Real ‘Man Of The Year’

Photo credit: Downing Street (Flickr)

“Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance.” (1 Corinthians 13:7) Love is an integral characteristic of a grace and ‘class’ that the 21st century has all but abandoned. Rarely, especially in the six and a half-year reign of our alleged president, have the walls of our House of Representatives echoed with the sincere gratitude, magnanimity, and CLASS that was demonstrated in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to our Congress yesterday.

His speech was nothing more controversial than some brief references to historical fact, the reiteration that history repeats itself, and an obviously much-needed plea for a return to common sense – for the good of EVERYONE.

He rightly pointed out that, from Israel’s inception, when Moses had painstakingly led his people to the edge of that tiny strip of land, there has been a Persia – an Iran and its pagan allies – clawing, tooth and nail, to hurt and destroy the Israelites. Four thousand years ago, under the leadership of a tyrant named Haman, the Persians were looking to annihilate the Jews. Today, under the leadership of Iran’s Hassan Rouhani, that goal has not changed. It was almost shameful that Mr. Netanyahu was forced to travel halfway around the earth to remind most of the civilized world of that nagging reality.

Showing more respect than most of them were due, Minister Netanyahu properly identified his audience as the “most important legislative body in the world.” And, while they really are that, many Americans lament the fact that they do not behave themselves as such an honored position necessarily demands.

The first several minutes of his talk were spent in a profoundly gracious expression of gratitude to our Chief Executive (our ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE, CHIEF HOST, AND DIPLOMAT) – who, for reasons (again) beyond our control, has again embarrassed us with his childish boycott. Given the demeanor of the speaker and the perfect logic of his subject matter, the absence of our president was pointless and nothing less than lame and embarrassing.

Obama has tried to sell everyone on the idea that Netanyahu’s real reason for addressing our Congress was political. In simply listening to Benjamin’s words, though, it was obvious that such a notion could not be further from the truth. In fact, Netanyahu said nothing more or different than any other kindred appeal he has voiced in the past. In further fact, it is obvious to me that Obama anticipated his every word – which is why he didn’t show up. The people who really hold our president’s first allegiance (and leash) perhaps demanded that he do what he could to deflect the efficacy of the Israeli leader’s mission. It didn’t work.

In helping to propagate the direly important message he gave to Congress, I MUST repeat a shocking example of Iran’s unvarnished hatred toward Israel that Netanyahu cited: He quoted a ‘tweet’ that one of Iran’s chief subcontractors of terror, the leader of Hezbollah, ‘Hassan Nasrallah,’ broadcast to the world! He said, “If all the Jews gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of chasing them down around the world.” The Prime Minister very appropriately mentioned that statement in helping to illustrate that the enemies of Israel are NOT merely looking to destroy or control a piece of land next to the Mediterranean – but, rather, the very PEOPLE who occupy that little country. Now, go back to Nasrallah’s above quote, take out the word ‘Jews’ – then drop in the term that identifies whatever group you belong to (Americans, African Americans, Native Americans, Hispanics, Japanese, Polish, Koreans, Vietnamese, etc.) – and notice how his words take on new weight and meaning. No one is immune from the insanity of the danger of such genocidal maniacs. Yet our president is insisting upon forcing the free world into a lethal contract with them.

At this point, I again have to ask why our appointed president would not support the simple airing and exposing of such darkness. And, once again, he appears to be aiding and abetting this murderous evil emanating from a MILITANT Islam (with which America IS AT WAR).

But the ultimate cry for help was an appeal to the COMMON SENSE of anyone with a functioning brain: “The greatest danger facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons.” And who in their right mind could dispute that fact? Instead, our president, who wouldn’t deign to sit for a single hour in the same room with our Jewish ally, conducts his ‘Countering Violent Extremism Summit’ and doesn’t mind inviting militant Islam’s sympathizers to that travesty. Dissing Israel seems to be part of our president’s mysteriously assigned job description.

Finally, Prime Minister Netanyahu pointed out the naïvete of expecting peaceful behavior from a chronically short-fused, nuke-armed Iran. To do such a thing is to turn our backs to an unprecedented level of danger, the likes of which we have never seen. Its likelihood is something that history has documented time and time again.

Speaking for Israel, he vowed never again to repeat the mistakes of the past. “The days of Israel remaining passive in the face of genocidal enemies …. THOSE DAYS ARE OVER!” And, wrapping it up, he very rightfully made this promise: “As Prime Minister of Israel, I can promise you one more thing …. Even if Israel has to stand alone, (nevertheless) ISRAEL WILL STAND!”

His last words (cited in Hebrew) were those that Moses gave to his people (regarding the battles they would face) before he left them to go and be with God: “Be strong and resolute. Neither fear nor dread them!”

And, other than again illustrating to the world the disharmony he has sown in the nation he was sworn to protect and unite, what did Obama achieve in his latest barb toward the children of Abraham? Nothing other than to lend executive support to antisemitism everywhere.

Given his unceasing affinity toward his Islamic brothers – members of the same crowd that danced in the streets when the Twin Towers fell – it really makes me wonder who’s going to be paying his retirement.

God bless Prime Minister Netanyahu, and may Israel forever prosper!

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Watch How A Fired-Up Col. Peters Praises Netanyahu And Pounds Obama Over Iran Threat

Col. Peters and Netanyahu

“Let’s face it,” Lt. Col. Ralph Peters told Sean Hannity, “If Israel disappeared from the face of the earth tomorrow, Obama would not shed a tear.”

In customary fashion, Peters blasted President Obama for his “stunning” belief that he can “make friends with Iran”…at the same time that he lauded Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before Congress for its frank assessment of Iran’s nuclear ambitions that threaten the safety of the entire world.

On Hannity’s Fox News program, Col. Peters made a grim and chilling claim: the Obama administration has accepted that Iran will develop nuclear weapons, but it wants a “decent interval of denial” between Obama’s presidency and Iran’s getting the bomb.

By clicking on the video above, you can watch Ralph Peters appearance on “Hannity” in which he concludes that Obama is a “spiteful failure as president.”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom