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 WesternJournalism.com.

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

BREAKING: Trey Gowdy Is Now Hot On Hillary’s Email Trail As Latest Clinton Scandal Widens

Images Credit: Fox News

As hard as her allies and associates are desperately trying to contain and minimize the latest Hillary scandal, the situation for the former secretary of state continues to worsen.

For the second day in a row, Hillary Clinton’s routine practice of using her personal, private email account when she headed up the U.S. State Department is the subject of a sharply negative report in The New York Times.

Under the headline, “Using Private Email, Hillary Clinton Thwarted Record Requests,” the Times article calls out the former Obama administration official for her defiant lack of cooperation with the congressional probe of the Benghazi attack that left four Americans dead.

According to the report, Mrs. Clinton’s exclusive and highly questionable use of her personal email account to conduct official State Department business hampered the Benghazi investigation as Congress tried to obtain relevant documents.

“The State Department had not searched the email account of former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton because she had maintained a private account, which shielded it from such searches, department officials acknowledged on Tuesday.”

Now, Republican Congressman Trey Gowdy, who chairs the Special House Committee appointed to get to the bottom of the Benghazi scandal, says he will dig even deeper and push even harder to obtain Hillary Clinton’s personal emails related to the deadly 2012 attack on the U.S. compound in Libya. Via The Blaze:

“The State Department does not have all of the former Secretary’s emails on its servers, only she has the complete record,” [Gowdy’s] statement said.

“And the committee is going to have to go to her, her lawyers and her email providers to ensure we have access to everything the American people are entitled to know.”

As Gowdy promises to press Mrs. Clinton to disclose all her email communications pertaining to Benghazi, it turns out that the server apparently handling the former secretary of state’s account was run by an Internet service provider registered to the Clintons’ New York home. As Fox News reports:

“The computer server that transmitted and received Hillary Clinton’s emails — on a private account she used exclusively for official business when she was secretary of state — traced back to an Internet service registered to her family’s home in Chappaqua, New York, according to Internet records reviewed by The Associated Press.”

Fox News notes that operating and controlling her own server would have provided Hillary Clinton with a critical shield of sorts — legal protection against attempts to obtain her private emails through government or private subpoenas.

“The highly unusual practice of a Cabinet-level official physically running her own email would have given Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, impressive control over limiting access to her message archives.”

Western Journalism has reported that Gowdy intends to call Mrs. Clinton to testify before the Select Committee on Benghazi, but he doesn’t want to have her appear before his investigators have access to all her relevant emails.

h/t: The Blaze

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

Hagel Didn’t Start The Fire

Photo credit: Chuck Hagel (Flickr)

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam war veteran and the lone Republican on Obama’s national security team, has been fired.

And John McCain’s assessment is dead on.

Hagel, he said, “was never really brought into that real tight circle inside the White House that makes all the decisions which has put us into the incredible debacle that we’re in today throughout the world.”

Undeniably, U.S. foreign policy is in a shambles. But what were the “decisions” that produced the “incredible debacle”?

Who made them? Who supported them?

The first would be George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq, a war for which Sens. John McCain, Joe Biden, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton all voted. At least Sen. Hagel admitted he made a mistake on that vote.

With our invasion, we dethroned Saddam and destroyed his Sunni Baathist regime. And today, the Islamic State, a barbaric offshoot of al-Qaida, controls Mosul, Anbar, and the Sunni third of Iraq.

Kurdistan is breaking away. And a Shia government in Baghdad, closely tied to Tehran and backed by murderous anti-American Shia militias, controls the rest. Terrorism is a daily occurrence.

Such is the condition of the nation which we were promised would become a model of democracy for the Middle East after a “cake-walk war.” The war lasted eight years for us, and now we are going back — to prevent a catastrophe.

A second decision came in 2011, when a rebellion arose against Bashar Assad in Syria, and we supported and aided the uprising. Assad must go, said Obama. McCain and the neocons agreed.

Now ISIS and al-Qaida are dominant from Aleppo to the Iraqi border with Assad barely holding the rest, while the rebels we urged to rise and overthrow the regime are routed or in retreat.

Had Assad fallen, had we bombed his army last year, as Obama, Kerry, and McCain wanted to do, and brought down his regime, ISIS and al-Qaida might be in Damascus today. And America might be facing a decision either to invade or tolerate a terrorist regime in the heart of the Middle East.

Lest we forget, Vladimir Putin pulled our chestnuts out of the fire a year ago, with a brokered deal to rid Syria of chemical weapons.

The Turks, Saudis, and Gulf Arabs who aided ISIS’ rise are having second thoughts, but sending no Saudi or Turkish troops to dislodge it.

So the clamor arises anew for U.S. “boots on the ground” to reunite the nations that the wars and revolutions we supported tore apart.

A third decision was the U.S.-NATO war on Col. Gadhafi’s Libya.

After deceiving the Russians by assuring them we wanted Security Council support for the use of air power simply to prevent a massacre in Benghazi, we bombed for half a year, and brought down Gadhafi.

Now we have on the south shore of the Mediterranean a huge failed state and strategic base camp for Islamists and terrorists who are spreading their poison into sub-Sahara Africa.

The great triumphs of Reagan and Bush 41 were converting Russia into a partner, and presiding over the liberation of Eastern Europe and the dissolution of the old Soviet Union into 15 independent nations.

Unfulfilled by such a victory for peace and freedom, unwilling to go home when our war, the Cold War, was over, Bush 43 decided to bring the entire Warsaw Pact, three Baltic states, and Moldova, Ukraine, and Georgia into NATO. For this project, Bush had the enthusiastic support of McCain, the neocons, and the liberal interventionists.

Since 1991, we sought to cut the Russians out of the oil and gas of the Caspian basin with a pipeline through the Caucasus to Turkey, bombed Serbia to tear off its cradle province of Kosovo, and engineered color-coded revolutions in Belgrade, Tbilisi, and other capitals to pull these new nations out of Russia’s sphere of influence.

Victoria Nuland of State and McCain popped up in Maidan Square in Kiev, backing demonstrations to bring down the democratically elected (if, admittedly, incompetent) regime in Ukraine.

The U.S.-backed coup succeeded. President Viktor Yanukovych fled, a pro-Western regime was installed, and a pro-Western president elected.

Having taken all this from his partner, Putin retrieved the Crimea and Russia’s Black Sea naval base at Sebastopol. When pro-Russia Ukrainians rose against the beneficiaries of the coup in Kiev, he backed his team, as we backed ours.

Now, we are imposing sanctions, driving Russia further from the West and into a realliance with Beijing, with which Putin has completed two long-term deals for oil and gas running over $700 billion dollars.

As the U.S. and NATO send planes, ships, and troops to show our seriousness in the Baltic and Ukraine, Russian planes and ships test Western defenses from Finland to Sweden to Portugal to Alaska and the coast of the continental United States.

Who made these decisions that created the debacle?

Was it those isolationists again?

 

COPYRIGHT 2014 CREATORS.COM

Photo credit: Chuck Hagel (Flickr)

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

ISIS Is Now In Libya

Photo credit: shutterstock.com

ISIS now officially has a stronghold in Libya- the coastal city of Derna.

The Derna branch is composed of 800 fighters who operate six camps outside of town with training facilities in the  Green Mountains.

ISIS controls the courts, all aspects of administration, education, and the local radio. Judges, journalists, and army officers opposing ISIS have been assassinated in the last year.

The black flag of ISIS now flies above the town.

ISIS in Libya calls itself the “Barqa” provincial division, the same name that Muslims used when they first conquered the area.

ISIS’ forces in the area have been bolstered by the return of 300 Libyan jihadists, formerly part of the ISIS al Battar Brigade–deployed first in Syria and later Iraq.

Abu-Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, said in an audio recording:

“We give you good news by announcing the expansion of the Islamic State to new lands … the lands of Al Haramayn [Saudi Arabia], Yemen, Egypt, Libya and Algeria.”

According to Noman Benotman, a former Libyan  jihadist now involved in counterrorism, “ISIS pose a serious threat in Libya. They are well on the way to creating an Islamic emirate in eastern Libya.”

Twitter reacted:

 

h/t: IJReview

Photo credit: shutterstock.com

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

Watch: Libya Was Having A Ceremony For A Fallen Officer When Suddenly THIS Happened (Intense)

jet

A pilot with the Libya Air Force crashed his MiG-21 fighter jet over the city of Tobruk in northeast Libya Tuesday during a memorial ceremony for another pilot who was killed recently when his aircraft malfunctioned and crashed.  The pilot has been identified as Rafa Al-Farani from Benghazi.  Al-Farani was performing a flyover at Tobruk Air Base when his aircraft suddenly plummeted from the sky and crashed into a city block, reportedly killing a young boy on the ground.

The crash, ironically, took place during a remembrance service for Air Force officer Ibrahim Al-Manifi who died on Saturday when his aircraft crashed over Beida.  Both crashes are believed to be the result of technical failures.  Both fighter jets were part of Operation Dignity, which is the military campaign against the al-Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Sharia led by rogue Libyan general Khalifa Haftar. Operation Dignity said that Tuesday’s crash was an accident, but militants claim they shot the aircraft down.

(H/T: Libya Herald)

Image credit:  Screenshot from video

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