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: Obama’s Bergdahl-Taliban Prisoner Swap Is Utterly Destroyed By Judge Jeanine

Image Credit: Fox News

With the Fox News Channel as well as NBC News standing by their reporting that Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl will be charged with desertion — and with the Pentagon and White House still insisting that reporting is wrong, that no decision to charge Bergdahl has been made — Judge Jeanine has weighed in on the controversy.

On her Fox News show, “Justice with Judge Jeanine,” the outspoken Ms. Pirro once again laid out a detailed and compelling argument as she laid into the Obama administration for swapping the Taliban Five for Bergdahl to secure his release from captivity.

“So let me see if I get this — an American like James Foley is held for two years, then beheaded. We don’t negotiate for him, but we do negotiate for someone who is widely believed to be a deserter — both inside and outside the Pentagon?

“Since when do we trade mass murderers for someone like this guy Bergdahl?”

Judge Jeanine went on to charge President Obama with “playing games with words,” given his continuing refusal to call the Taliban a terrorist group and insisting we are not at war with radical Islam.

You can see Jeanine Pirro’s entire fiery commentary by clicking on the video above.

h/t: Fox News Insider

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

WAR! Fox News Vs. The Pentagon In A High-Stakes Showdown Over Bergdahl And Obama’s Cred

Bergdahl

Fox News stands resolutely by its report. The Pentagon labels it “patently false.” In essence, as Bill O’Reilly concludes, the Defense Department is calling the Fox News source “a liar.”

So, what’s the truth? Is the Army about to charge Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl with desertion? Will Bergdahl soon face the music for willfully abandoning his post in Afghanistan?

As Politico reports: “The Pentagon vigorously denied reports on Tuesday that the Army is preparing to charge Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl with desertion, stressing the top commander reviewing the case has made no decisions.”

But Fox News, along with other organizations, says a decision has been made and that Bergdahl’s lawyer has been given official papers on the matter. The Army acknowledges that its investigation into the Bergdahl controversy concluded months ago, but inexplicably the Defense Department has still not announced any findings or charges.

“Such charges, especially if they led to a court-martial, would kick up a political hornet’s nest following the intense criticism of the deal that led to Bergdahl’s release,” the Politico post says.

In a highly unusual move, the former military intelligence officer who claimed on Monday that Bergdahl would be charged with desertion was back on The O’Reilly Factor Tuesday night to double down on his bold assertion.

Despite the Pentagon’s adamant push-back, retired Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer told Bill O’Reilly that not only would Bergdahl be charged, but also that the White House was stalling and stonewalling to try to mitigate a potential political disaster.

“Shaffer, who believes the White House’s alleged decision to delay its announcement is politically motivated, added that he stands by ‘all of those facts,’ referring to his report on Monday that Bergdahl’s lawyer has been given a statement of charges.”

Bergdahl was held by the Taliban for five years before, in a highly controversial deal, the Obama administration swapped five Gitmo detainees for the sergeant’s freedom from captivity.

You can watch O’Reilly’s interview with Tony Shaffer by clicking on the video above.

 

h/t Fox News

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

Shocking: Watch This Toddler Show Just How Terrifying Radical Islam Is In Only 44 Seconds

childwithak47

In many American schools, if a child points his finger like a gun, or shapes a Pop-Tart into a pistol, or wears an NRA t-shirt, the anti-gun folks will overreact with threats of suspension or worse. However, in Afghanistan, a three-year-old will threaten a cameraman with his very own AK-47 just for filming him. A BBC cameraman was talking to a Taliban toddler at his village outside of Kabul when he asked the boy what he was going to do with the gun. The boy replied,

“I’m going to shoot people, tak-tak-tak.”

The boy asked why the cameraman was taking his picture. The cameraman told him,

“We are taking your picture because you are sitting with a gun.”

The boy responded with, 

“Then watch out, I’ll shoot you. Now my father comes and he’ll beat you up.”

h/t: IJReview

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

Video: SEAL Team 6 Was Set Up





On August 6, 2011, a military helicopter—Extortion 17, carrying thirty-eight men, including seventeen of the elite SEAL Team 6—was shot down over Taliban-controlled territory in eastern Afghanistan. It was the worst loss of life in a single day suffered since the Afghanistan war began.

Per a 1300-page military report, it was simply the result of a “lucky shot” by Taliban soldiers perched on top of a building.

According to family members of those murdered, it was no lucky shot. It was an inside job that may have included elements within our own government up to the highest levels, including the President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama.

Why did they have to disappear?

These were the same Navy SEALS who took part in the Osama Bin Laden raid that, despite the passage of almost two years, is still shrouded in mystery. Over a year ago, the government watchdog group, Judicial Watch, sued the Obama administration for the release of documents, photos, and videos relating to the raid and alleged burial at sea of Bin Laden; but thus far, the Obama administration has refused to comply. Seymour Hersh, the Pulitzer Prize-winning writer, recently said that the story of the Bin Laden raid was “one big lie.”

Watch this exclusive video by Western Center for Journalism in which we pull the curtain back to show how SEAL Team 6 was set up—more than likely by our own government.