BUSTED: Despite His ‘Refusal,’ Here’s How Two-Faced Obama Repeatedly Calls Terrorists ‘Islamic’

Image Credit: Fox News

I am puzzled. I don’t understand why so many people keep claiming that President Obama refuses to say that terrorists slaughtering their way through the Middle East are Islamic radicals.

By his own words — by his own description of a main terror threat in Iraq, Syria, and Libya — Obama has repeatedly and emphatically identified the bloody butchers as Islamic. In fact, the president makes a point of using a specific term for the terrorists that’s preferred by those in his administration — ISIL.

What does the acronym ISIL stand for? The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. It’s a group of radical, brutal, barbaric Islamists whose stated intent is to form a caliphate.

And while Obama pretends out of one side of his mouth not to call the terror fighters Islamic, out of the other side he clearly and consistently refers to them as ISIL — Islamic.

As he has done many times over the last few months, President Obama just this past week used the term ISIL — Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant — to describe the militants in the Middle East. While claiming he would not give those terrorists “legitimacy” by associating them with Islam, he did that very thing…time and again.

Daily Kos noted the president’s words at the workshop-and-seminar-driven White House Summit on “Violent Extremism”:

…we are here at this summit because of the urgent threat from groups like al Qaeda and ISIL….Al Qaeda and ISIL and groups like it are desperate for legitimacy.

In that same Daily Kos article, author Ian Reifowitz twisted himself into awkward contortions trying to defend Obama’s message confusion that some could argue reflects the president’s obvious lack of moral clarity as well as his ideological ambiguity when it comes to identifying a dangerous enemy of Western civilization.

“Can anyone reading or listening to these remarks truthfully claim that President Obama is denying a connection between ISIL and Islam, or that he doesn’t understand the nature of the conflict?” wrote Reiowitz. He then went on to say:

So is the president right to refuse to describe ISIL and al Qaida as Islamic or even Islamist—even though that’s what they are?

Is he right to reject the use of any form of the word Islamic or Muslim to characterize them? You betcha.

Again, I am puzzled. Is this Daily Kos apologist for Obama’s lack of logic and manifest crisis of identity when it comes to naming the enemy trying to say that the president is right in denying the truth? Sounds as though he is, indeed.

I guess that would make Barack Obama a “denier” — the dreaded label that so many liberals try to pin on conservatives when it comes to such issues as climate change and charges of racism in America.

When it comes to the left’s denial of facts, here again I must admit my puzzlement. The leading leftist voices in the administration — from Obama to Biden to Kerry to DHS Secretary Johnson — are constantly denying that what ISIL leaders say is really what they mean.

No matter how often or how forcefully Islamist militants declare they are inspired by and acting in accordance with the basic principles of Islam, the top non-Muslim administration officials — presumably, though, Islamic scholars of some note — say those terrorists don’t know what they’re talking about.

Naturally, Twitter users have weighed in with some noteworthy observations:
ISIL1

ISIL2

ISIL3

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

Here’s How ISIS Militants May Soon Be Slipping Into The U.S…

isis6

ISIS militants may soon be slipping into the US via the thousands of Syrian “refugees” coming to the country.

According to Michael Steinbach, deputy assistant director of the FBI’s counter terrorism unit, the U.S. does not have the resources to prevent ISIS fighters from slipping into the US alongside the many other refugees being let in.

Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, recently held hearings on the process of vetting refugees and wrote a letter to the White House voicing the committee’s “serious national security concerns.”

In a letter to National Security Advisor Susan Rice, McCaul and other Republicans stated that “The continued civil war and destabilization in Syria undeniably make it more difficult to acquire the information needed to conduct reliable threat assessments on specific refugees.”

Steinbach told the committee:

“The difference is that in Iraq we were there on the ground collecting (information), so we had databases to use,” he added. “The concern is that in Syria, the lack of our footprint on the ground in Syria, the databases won’t have the information we need. So it’s not that we have a lack of a process, it’s that there is a lack the information.”

Ned Price, a National Security Council spokesman, stated that rigorous screening of all Syrian refugees would take place:

“Our screening protocols for refugees are rigorous, continually refined, and build on years of experience vetting individuals coming to the United States from around the world,” he said in an e-mailed statement. “They permit us to proceed in a way that seeks to both safeguard public safety and serve our mission of providing refuge to some of the world’s most vulnerable people.”

Still, McCaul and other Republicans are not so sure about the vetting of the refugees.

What do you think? Are ISIS militants bound to slip in among the Syrian refugees? Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments section.

h/t: Pat Dollard

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

Mr. Obama, Time To Put On Your Big-Boy Pants

Facebook/Barack Obama

Out of touch with reality, as usual, President Obama trips over his ideology yet again.

At the National Prayer Breakfast, Obama told the American people that Christians have committed similar atrocities as we see now in the Mid East. He cited the Crusades and the inquisitions.

This is the leader of the free world?

Yes, by all means, let’s set the moral standard by events that happened before there was a “New World”. Let’s just skip the part about those people who fled religious persecution in 3 tiny boats )I think they were called Pilgrims.)

Let’s focus on a time in history where the church was the world power and feudal governments used primitive and brutal punishments at all levels.

Mr. Obama, only a very few ideologues will buy into this comparison that you would like us to buy into. We can play along in your tit-for-tat if you really want to go there.

By historical standards, the 20th century was the bloodiest in world history. It was in the past century that we saw the mass murders of millions in the name of totalitarian ideological regimes. Yes, Mr. Obama, it was the Marxists and Socialists who murdered millions for another kind of religious dogma, for a Utopian society.

The most definitive published explanation of this particular ideology was the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx, published in the 1800’s.

This was just another form of radicalism; their religion was the centralized government, any other religion was outlawed, and all rights were derived from the state.

Millions were executed, tortured, maimed, imprisoned, or purposely starved to death in the march to communism and the creation of the Soviet Republic.

In China, Mao Tse-tung led a revolution creating Communist China, stepping over the dead bodies of millions of Chinese.

We can’t forget the other historical event that involved a whole planet, World War II.

The National Socialist Party of Germany took the world by storm, invading one country after the next and killing millions upon millions along the way. All because of a short little man and his maniacal desire for world domination–and a super-race of blonde, blue-eyed Aryans.

So, Mr. Obama, are you getting the picture yet? You can use any reference point or point to any group of madmen. The only connecting thread is the obsession of world domination at any cost.

This is the threat, Mr. Obama. It’s not about a label; it’s not about the 12th century. This is a threat to all of the civilized nations in the world. Most of all, it is a threat to our own national security, which you are responsible for protecting. This is a threat today, in real time.

In the late 70’s, Jimmy Carter faced a crisis in Iran. College students overran our embassy and held American hostages for well over 400 days. Since that time, we have had one terrorist act after the next, hijackings, and attacks on our troops, all by radical Muslim terrorists.

Now, you wish to throw water on any call to arms as we watch the next movement for world domination strike a bloody trail of pain on their journey to complete domination, not of a town, or a country, but of the entire world according to their own propaganda.

How many innocent lives will be butchered and tortured to get you to look around and realize that we face an evil in this century that will be the next movement to claim millions of lives.

Mr. President, it’s time to put on your man pants and ask Congress for a declaration of war because we are at war now.

Presidents since Carter have said that we will fight terrorists whereever they are. They have told the world that each nation must take a stand. That’s all good, but we don’t need permission to protect our people or our nation from all threats.

Report after report, statistics, and strategists have told us in clear language what the risks are. Our response has been to have people remove their shoes and subject Americans to unprecedented searches at every airport.

It is time to rally the American people and take the full military might of the United States to a complete and total victory against the threat of a barbaric world domination.

How many more children must be buried alive, crucified, beheaded, or murdered in front of their families?

This is not about nation-building or spreading democracy; let them build their own. This is about ending a global war before it becomes even more widespread.

While you are at it, it’s time to bar the Muslim Brotherhood from the White House. It’s time to lead, follow, or get the heck out of the way.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”–Edmund Burke

Mr. Obama, we have a lot of good men.

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

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

Richard Burr: I Have More Fears Today Because We Are Against A Different Enemy

Fox News

The chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Richard Burr, R-N.C., told Fox News viewers on Thursday night’s Special Report with Bret Baier that he is more worried about a terrorist attack on U.S. soil than at any time since September 11, 2001.

“In the 14 years of serving on the Intelligence committee, either in the House or in the Senate, I have greater fears today about something happening in the homeland than at any point after 9/11.”

Senator Burr further explained that ISIS is a different type of adversary because of their resources and ideology.

For every one ISIL fighter we kill, three come over the Turkish border as new recruits. They’ve got money, they’ve got something to sell, which is terrorism, barbaric terrorism. And we hope that they run out of recruits to go after.

The senator concluded articulating his concerns about America’s ability to protect the homeland and its citizens:

We’re the best in the world, make no mistake about it, but we’re not perfect. That’s what scares me.

h/t: Fox News

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