Why Can’t Obama Say “Islamic Extremism?”

Facebook/Barack Obama

Why is it so hard for this administration to call Islamic extremists what they are? Instead, they parse and mince their appellations in every conceivable way to avoid identifying them as such. For that matter, how can the president maintain any semblance of credibility when he illogically avers that the Islamic State is not Islamic? By refusing to acknowledge, at least publicly, the enemy that has unleashed its destructive tactics against humanity, the administration appears incompetent, indecisive, and impotent against those who have declared jihad against America and the west.

It’s critical to make a distinction between the faith of Islam and Islamic extremism. Islam, as a religion, is faith-based, while the sectarian-defined extremism of the Wahhabist movement, or Salafi, is more of an Islamo-Fascist political movement. Even though it has its theological roots in Islam the religion, they are more of a politically ideological sect within Islam that goes far beyond what is reasonable in their interpretations of key scriptures in the Koran and the Hadith or sayings of Mohammed.

Abdallah Al Obeid, the former dean of the Islamic University of Medina and member of the Saudi Consultative Council, confirms that this is politically ideological, rather than sectarian. He calls this extremism a “political trend” within Islam that “has been adopted for power-sharing purposes.” He says it cannot be called a sect because “It has no special practices, nor special rites, and no special interpretation of religion that differ from the main body of Sunni Islam.”

Lt. General Thomas McInerney, who serves on the Iran Policy Committee, said a few years ago in an interview, “Islamic extremism is an ideology just like Fascism and Communism, and it must be fought in much the same way. The West has not acknowledged this and consequently we have not educated our population that it is an ideology rather than a religion. This is confusing people because of our tolerance for the diversity of religion.”

The rest of the world seems to have divested itself of the ineffable “Islamic extremism” label. After the horrendous murders of a dozen employees of the Charlie Hebdo paper in Paris last month, more than a million people, including 40 presidents and prime ministers, showed up for a solidarity rally against Islamic extremism. It was, as the New York Times reported, “the most striking show of solidarity in the West against the threat of Islamic extremism since the Sept. 11 attacks.”

No one from the Obama administration attended, even though Attorney General (AG) Eric Holder was in Paris at the time. The New York Daily News ran a Front Page headline, sending President Obama a message in type large enough he could have seen it 220 miles away in Washington, “You let the world down.” The (UK) Daily Mail headline read, “America snubs historic Paris rally.”

Isn’t it interesting that the AG that has called us a “nation of cowards” for not having a discussion on race would capitulate to the political correctness of not having a discussion (or demonstration) against Islamic extremism? It appears downright cowardly. But it is his Dept. of Justice that still classifies the 2009 Fort Hood shooting as “workplace violence,” even though the shooter, Nidal Hasan, describes himself as a “Soldier of Allah” and has petitioned to be classified as a citizen of the Islamic State. But Holder was undoubtedly just following the directives of his boss, who declared a couple years ago at the United Nations that “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet.”

Even in denouncing the Islamic State burning to death a Jordanian pilot this past week, the president revealed the great lengths he will go to maintain ambiguity in identifying our enemies. In a taped comment in the White House, Obama said, “It also indicates the degree to which whatever ideology they are operating off of, it’s bankrupt.” Really, Mr. President? “Whatever ideology they are operating off of?” Are you the only one on the planet who doesn’t know where the jihadist ideology originates?

The matter became only more convoluted by White House press secretaries this past week. ABC News’ Jonathan Karl asked Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz what the distinction was between terrorists and the Taliban. Karl asked, “You say the United States government does not give in to demands [and] does not pay ransom. But how is what the Jordanians are talking about doing any different than what the United States did to get the release of [Bowe] Bergdahl — the releasing prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay to the Taliban, which is clearly a terrorist organization?”

Shultz stammered in his obfuscating response, “As you know, this was highly discussed at the time. And prisoner swaps are a traditional, end-of-conflict interaction that happens. As the war in Afghanistan wound down, we felt like it was the appropriate thing to do…I’d also point out that the Taliban is an armed insurgency; ISIL is a terrorist group. So we don’t make concessions to terrorist groups.”

So the Taliban is an “armed insurgency” and not a terrorist group. What a relief it is to finally learn that the organization that harbored and protected Osama bin Ladin was not a terrorist group! I really thought they were, especially after their massacre of 130 school children in Pakistan last month! Maybe they’re just not “JV” enough to be considered outright “terrorists.”

I’m not sure that we could expect anything different from a cadre of ideological academics who had no real-world experience prior to running the sole remaining world superpower. For as Dr. Lyle Rossiter explained in his book “The Liberal Mind,” the single greatest symptom of the liberal mindset is detachment from reality. And the proof that this administration is severely afflicted with it is most clearly exemplified by their inability to identify our enemies as Islamic extremists.

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

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

WATCH: Ferguson Protesters Claim Obama, Holder Support Their Pro-Palestine, Anti-Israel Campaign

Vimeo | Dream Defenders

They call themselves “freedom fighters,” this group of top Ferguson activists joined together under the #BlackLivesMatter banner that has become a prominent, as well as highly controversial, protest slogan.

And now — proudly proclaiming they have the firm support of Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and Al Sharpton — a number of the self-described leaders of the movement have traveled to Nazareth, known as the Arab capital of Israel, to rally in solidarity with Palestinians in their fight against the Israelis.

Details of the #BlackLivesMatter demonstration are available on the Hands Up United website, where 2015 is declared a “year of resistance” against police brutality and societal oppression that supposedly keeps minorities in America “in chains.”

“2015: The Year of Resistance with a firm dedication to the liberation of Black, Brown and oppressed communities, along with dismantling the New Jim Crow, we would like to honor our sisters and brothers who paved the way in our nation and around the world!”

According to the Ferguson protest leaders who went to Israel to “rail” against that country’s policies, among the “oppressed communities” of the world are the Palestinians in Gaza, who they compared to black residents of racially torn Ferguson, Missouri.

And in proclaiming their commitment to agitate on behalf of the Palestinians, the #BlackLivesMatter protesters boast that they have powerful and prominent people on their side, including the President of the United States.

From the statement on their website: “The Ferguson and Eric Garner protests, staunchly supported by President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder and informal adviser Al Sharpton, have well-documented strains of anti-Israel sentiment running through them.”

By clicking on the video above, you can watch an account of the trip to Israel produced and published by the Ferguson protest group, which included university professor and racial activist Marc Lamont Hill, often seen as a commentator on CNN and MSNBC.

It’s interesting to note that this Ferguson protest group has been agitating in Israel as relations between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Obama have been publicly deteriorating.

Western Journalism has also reported on the apparent attempt by Obama campaign cronies, as well as John Kerry’s State Department, to actively influence the outcome of the upcoming Israeli elections — reportedly working on the ground, in Israel, against the re-election of Netanyahu.

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

The Price Of Speaking Truth To Power: $80 Million

Holder Obama

Leftists love using the phrase “speaking truth to power.” But when Standard and Poor’s, the respected credit ratings service, told the truth about the federal government’s out-of-control spending, power came crashing down on its head.

In August 2011, S&P lowered America’s credit rating below AAA because it found that the government’s ability to manage its finances had become “less stable, less effective and less predictable.” This set off a firestorm within the White House. The Treasury Department publicly attacked the report, and then-Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner called the CEO of the company and threatened them. According to reports of the conversation, Geithner promised that the company would be “looked at very carefully” and would “be held accountable for that.” Harold McGraw III, the CEO of S&P’s parent company, said in a sworn deposition that Geithner said: “Such behavior could not occur without a response from the government.” The response came; and it was swift, harsh, and costly.

The Obama Administration unleashed Attorney General Eric Holder on the company. In August 2013, the Department of Justice sued the company for fraud in their ratings of mortgage-backed securities in the years leading up to the financial crisis of 2008. According to the DOJ’s theory, S&P ratings of the securities were tied to relationships they had with the investment firms. The government was threating the company with $5 billion worth of fines. There was no mention of the fact that other credit rating services also rated the same securities as safe. The New York Times noted that “S&P, one of three major agencies offering advice to investors about the quality of debt investments and the only one to face a Justice Department lawsuit, stood out as the rare company to actually follow through and fight the government.” It is clear that the actions of the DOJ were in response to the company’s decision to warn Americans about the coming debt crisis.

S&P decided to fight back by making motions in court demanding documents, emails, and other information connecting the White House, the Treasury Department, and the Department of Justice, in an effort to connect the dots between the credit downgrade and the actions of the DOJ. Not surprisingly, DOJ opposed those motions in court, castigating the effort as a “fishing expedition.” Turning the screws, the DOJ, again in the words of the New York Times, “invoked an obscure federal law passed a quarter-century ago after the savings and loan scandals. The law, the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989, or Firrea, requires a lower burden of proof than criminal charges and empowers prosecutors to demand unusually large penalties: up to $1.1 million per violation.”

Faced with the threat to the future stability of the company, S&P was forced to settle to get the Obama Administration off their backs. This week, we discovered that the cost of speaking “truth to power” is about $80 million — the amount of money S&P will be forced to fork over to the government for speaking the truth about the country’s financial mess.

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

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

A Party At War With Itself

Holder Obama

For the third time, the cops of the NYPD have turned their backs on the mayor of New York.

The first time was when Mayor Bill de Blasio arrived at Woodhull Hospital, where mortally wounded officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu had been taken on Dec. 20. The second was when the mayor spoke at Ramos’ funeral. The third was at Liu’s service on Sunday.

Detestation of de Blasio among the NYPD and the cops who came from across the country to stand in solidarity with their slain brothers is broad and deep.

And, in a way, de Blasio served as stand-in for Al Sharpton, Eric Holder, and President Obama. For all four gave aid and comfort to the war on cops that has raged since Ferguson last August when Officer Darren Wilson shot and killed an 18-year-old who tried to grab his gun.

When a Staten Island grand jury declined to indict the NYPD’s Daniel Pantaleo in the chokehold death of Eric Garner, after the 350-pound black man, suffering from heart disease, diabetes, and asthma, died resisting arrest, the war on cops went viral and national.

De Blasio, Sharpton, Holder, and Obama were all out on point saying that blacks, especially young black males, were all too often victimized by racist cops. And black kids needed to be taught that.

Brimming with moral outrage, protesters took to the streets; blocked Times Square and Grand Central; disrupted Macy’s during the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays; and shut down malls, highways, and bridges across the country.

Though their lawlessness was rampant and their chants bespoke a hatred of police, who were compared to the KKK by marchers yelling for “dead cops,” these protests were indulged and described as “peaceful.”

So it was that on Dec. 20, a deranged criminal decided to make himself famous by putting “wings on pigs” and executing Ramos and Liu in Bedford-Stuyvesant as payback for Garner and Brown.

Suddenly, the real America revealed itself, an America enraged at the cold-blooded assassinations of cops and disgusted with those who had pandered to anti-police protesters. And the America that revealed itself is not good news for the Democratic Party.

For we have seen this movie before, half a century ago.

After LBJ’s victory over Barry Goldwater came the riots of the 1960s — Watts in 1965, Newark and Detroit in 1967, and 100 cities, including D.C., after Dr. King’s assassination in 1968.

These riots produced deaths, thousands of arrests, and looting and arson on a scale requiring the National Guard and federal troops. And these rampages were perhaps the principal factor in turning Middle America against a Democratic Party that had been the nation’s majority party since 1932.

In 1964, LBJ won 61 percent of the vote. Four years later, his vice president, Hubert Humphrey, got less than 43 percent.

What happened? A civil war had taken place inside the Democratic coalition, not unlike what is going on now. Today’s conflict, though not nearly so violent, is daily nationalized by cable and the Internet.

All of America watched what happened in Ferguson night after night, and saw the aftermath of what happened on Staten Island, and observed what happened Dec. 20 and then at those funerals.

Americans began openly and viscerally to take sides.

And from the new defensiveness of de Blasio and the muted responses of Sharpton, Holder, and Obama, there is no doubt who has lost this battle. A sundered America is siding with the cops and turning against those who turned on the cops.

Something like this happened in Chicago in August 1968: Police, after constant provocation by foul-mouthed radicals, chased them down, clubbed them, and arrested them in Grant Park.

The networks and national media denounced a “police riot,” and liberal Democratic Senator Abe Ribicoff said Mayor Richard J. Daley’s cops had used “Gestapo tactics in the streets of Chicago.”

When the dust settled, however, America, to the amazement of the elites, had come down on the side of the cops, not “the kids.”

That America gave Nixon and Wallace 57 percent of its votes.

The political point: In the 1960s, both George Wallace and LBJ were Democrats. Mayor Daley and the radicals cursing his cops were Democrats. The students who took over Berkeley and Columbia, and the deans and professors whose offices they trashed, were all liberal or leftist Democrats.

The ’60s wars over social, moral, and cultural issues were bloody scrimmages on the home field of the Democratic Party.

So it is today. Whether the issue is income inequality or the evil of Wall Street, police brutality or black criminality, the hostility and anger among Democrats over these issues makes the Tea Party vs. the GOP establishment look like a badminton tournament on the country club lawn.

 
COPYRIGHT 2015 CREATORS.COM

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

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

Allen West: Obama Creating Myth Of Modern-Day Racism

allenwest

Charles Payne asserted to Lt. Col. Allen West on Fox News Live Sunday that many people believe President Barack Obama is the central reason why race relations seem to be getting worse in the United States. Colonel West commented that he grew up in the inner-city of Atlanta and remembers what race relations used to be like. West said that racial division is what Obama wants.

“For President Obama, when you look at it from his perspective as a progressive socialist community organizer, he believes that race relations are fine, because of the impact they’re having on what they believe is social justice. So when you have this incredible divide amongst us, because that is the aim and the goal of collectivism, which is what the president believes in, then everything is fine for him.”

Colonel West pointed out that the president and Al Sharpton are perpetuating a mob atmosphere:

“When you have someone like Al Sharpton visiting the White House and providing him counsel eighty-two times and standing and putting pressure on Sony and other individuals, and this angst that has happened, and this mob atmosphere that is going on, this is really what the president would like to have – this vomiting of dissension. But that is not what the inner-city needs right now. We need economic growth. We need better education opportunities. But that’s not the focus.”

Payne added that President Obama is stoking racial division because he is unable to improve the economy.

“I would actually argue that a lot of times the president’s fallback position with respect to stoking the anger and anxiety with race is because of an inability to move the economic needle … It feels like at every turn that he could blame or hint or suggest that racism was at the fault of criticism, the fault of failure, he took that.”

West responded that, although the nation has a black president and many other black people serving in positions of authority, it still is not good enough for Obama.

“Well, one of the things is that they created that atmosphere back early in 2009. Eric Holder said that we were a nation of cowards when it came to race. And you look at the fact that we have elected and re-elected the first black president, but yet he still believes that that’s not enough. We have the National Security Advisor, the Department of Homeland Security. I don’t know what more else you need to have.”

 

h/t Allen West Republic

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