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

Military Expert Calls On Congress To Stop Infiltration Of Radical Islam Within Obama Administration

James Lyons Jr.

With the Republican Party in control of both congressional chambers, retired U.S. Navy Admiral James Lyons Jr. recently expressed his hope that lawmakers will work to stem the tide of Muslim extremists attaining powerful positions within the nation’s intelligence community.

“No question we’ve got a hell of a job ahead of us with the Muslim Brotherhood penetration in every one of our national security agencies, including all our intelligence agencies” he said during a January meeting of the National Press Club. “And, as has been reported by some, our lead intelligence agency headed by a Muslim convert [an apparent reference to rumors surrounding CIA Director John Brennan], this is not going to be an easy task.”

In a brief recap of the last several decades, Lyons explained that America has had “many opportunities … to change the course of history,” beginning with the Iranian hostage situation during the Carter administration.

Instead, he lamented, American leaders have repeatedly refused to act, leading to the dire situation he says we are currently in.

“Here we are today,” he said. “Political correctness has neutralized all our military leadership.”

A major factor in defeating the enemy is identifying it, something Lyons said too many are reticent to do.

“The threat is Islam,” he asserted. “Let’s make no mistake about it. There’s no such thing as radical Islam.”

He went on to ask for “a definition of moderate Islam,” concluding that “there ain’t any.”

While Lyons applauded the recent efforts of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi to encourage an Islamic reformation, he said the Obama administration has yet to even acknowledge this development.

“It certainly tells you where their sympathies lie,” he said.

h/t: TPNN

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

Obama Avoids Using The Term ‘Islamic Terrorists’ So As Not To Offend Muslims

CNN

When President Barack Obama was questioned by three YouTube personalities in January, the conversations revolved around green lipstick, low-cost medication, and which superpower he would choose. Yet there were no hard-hitting questions about the president’s refusal to use the term “Islamic terrorism” when referring to violent jihadists. On Sunday, CNN’s Fareed Zakaria asked Obama if the U.S. is in a war with radical Islam.

Lindsey Graham says that he’s bothered by the fact that you won’t admit that we’re in a religious war. There are others who say that the White House takes pains to avoid using the term ‘Islamic terrorists.’ So my question to you is, are we in a war with radical Islam?

President Obama responded:

You know, I think that the way to understand this is there is an element growing out of Muslim communities in certain parts of the world that have perverted the religion, have embraced a nihilistic, violent, almost medieval interpretation of Islam; and they’re doing damage in a lot of countries around the world.  But it is absolutely true that I reject a notion that somehow that creates a religious war because the overwhelming majority of Muslims reject that interpretation of Islam. They don’t even recognize it as being Islam; and I think that for us to be successful in fighting this scourge, it’s very important for us to align ourselves with the 99.9 percent of Muslims who are looking for the same thing we’re looking for: order, peace, prosperity.

h/t: Newsbusters

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

University Bans Use Of ‘Mr., Mrs. Or Ms.’ In The Name Of Political Correctness

Wikipedia/Alex Irklievski

According to recent reports, the Graduate Center of the City University of New York has handed down a decision that will force its staff to ditch certain honorifics when addressing others. The new policy prohibits the use of “Mr., Mrs. or Ms.” due to their potentially discriminatory characteristics.

CUNY Interim Provost Louise Lennihan distributed a memo touting the “respectful, welcoming and gender-inclusive learning environment” the new policy will help preserve, explaining the absence of these titles serves to “accommodate properly the diverse population of current and prospective students.”

While another university source suggested the policy shift was part of the school’s compliance with federal law, however, at least one expert in anti-discrimination legislation confirmed no such policy is required.

“They are not mandated to do this,” attorney Saundra Schuster said.

Regardless of legal requirements, though, CUNY staff members took the memo as a direct order to curtail the use of certain gender-based titles.

“My interpretation was that I was being asked to adhere to this policy,” said professor Juliette Blevins, “as were the professors who received the letter.”

Another CUNY professor, Joseph Borelli, indicated that he is open to embracing whatever titles his students prefer, though he opposes limiting speech with this restrictive policy.

“If a student asked me to call him Godzilla, I would happily call him Godzilla,” he said, “or whatever anyone asked to be called. But we do not need another ultra-PC policy change.”

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

Look What One Of The World’s Biggest Schoolbook Publishers Just ‘Banned’ To Avoid Offense

wikipedia

It could hardly have come at a worse time — the notice from one of the world’s biggest publishers of schoolbooks and teaching materials that its authors should avoid using the word “pigs” and should not write about anything that could be perceived as pork-related…including sausages.

Right in the midst of the Paris-centered celebration and defense of freedom of expression that’s drawn millions to stand up for the liberties that radical Islam would try to destroy, along comes this “guidance” from Oxford University Press.

As reported by London’s Daily Mail, “Schoolbook authors have been told not to write about sausages or pigs for fear of causing offense…among Jews and Muslims.”

Many millions of students and teachers use books from Oxford University Press, which, according to its website, publishes more than 6,000 titles a year worldwide.

“Our range includes dictionaries, English language teaching materials, children’s books, journals, scholarly monographs, printed music, higher education textbooks, and schoolbooks.”

An article in the International Business Times notes that the no-pig, no-pork publishing guidance was disclosed during a BBC radio show on free speech in the wake of the brutal Islamic terrorists’ attack on Charlie Hebdo. One of the show hosts ridiculed the advisory:

Now, if a respectable publisher, tied to an academic institution, is saying you’ve got to write a book in which you cannot mention pigs because some people might be offended, it’s just ludicrous. It is just a joke.

A spokesman for the prestigious Oxford University Press reportedly defended the new guidelines in light of heightened “sensitivities” to cultural differences around the world and the potential for creating an offense.

“Our materials are sold in nearly 200 countries, and as such, and without compromising our commitment in any way, we encourage some authors of educational materials respectfully to consider cultural differences and sensitivities.”

On the BBC radio program, as reported by The Daily Mail, Tory MP Phillip Davies lambasted the publisher’s “nonsensical” no-pig guidelines, especially in textbooks and academic works where freedom of expression should be at its fullest display.

On the one hand you have politicians and the great and the good falling over each other to say how much they believe in freedom of speech and on the other hand they are presiding over people being unable to use and write words that are completely inoffensive.

We have got to get a grip on this nonsensical political correctness.

h/t: International Business Times

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