Saturday, June 18, 2016

Obama: Anti-Anti-Terrorist


Sharia supremacists are not only shielded from scrutiny by U.S. intelligence but welcomed into the national-security apparatus.

By Andrew C. McCarthy — June 18, 2016
President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden place flowers down during their visit to a memorial to the victims of the Pulse nightclub shooting, Thursday, June 16, 2016 in Orlando, Fla. Offering sympathy but no easy answers, Obama came to Orlando to try to console those mourning the deadliest shooting in modern U.S history.
President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden place flowers down during their visit to a memorial to the victims of the Pulse nightclub shooting, Thursday, June 16, 2016 in Orlando, Fla. Offering sympathy but no easy answers, Obama came to Orlando to try to console those mourning the deadliest shooting in modern U.S history. Pablo Martinez Monsivais AP



Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article84159172.html#storylink=cpy
Barack Obama has spent his presidency cultivating Islamists, particularly from the international Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates in the United States. As we saw this week, he chafes at the term “radical Islam” — as do his Islamist advisers. At their insistence, he had instructional materials for training government agents purged of references to Islamic terms that illuminate the nexus between Muslim doctrine and jihadist terror.

Obama’s vaunted national-security strategy, “Countering Violent Extremism,” is Orwellian. The term CVE supplants identification of our jihadist enemies with the wooly notion that “violence” can be caused by any form of “extremism” — it has nothing to do with Islam. By transferring security responsibilities from government intelligence agents to Muslim “community leaders” (often, Islamist groups), CVE actually encourages violent extremism.

These steps have been reckless. They have made our nation more vulnerable to the kind of jihadist atrocities we saw last weekend in Orlando. So obvious is this that many Obama critics have gone from thinking the unthinkable to saying it aloud: The president of the United States seems to be intentionally betraying our national security; even if not squarely on the side of the terrorists, Obama is such an apologist for their Islamist grievances that he might as well be.

I don’t buy this. Oh, I believe Obama is betraying our national security, but I do not think he is doing so intentionally. Instead, he has the good intentions, such as they are, of a left-wing globalist. The president sees security as a matter of international stability, not of a single nation’s safety — not even of that single nation that has entrusted him with its security.

To grasp Obama’s conception of security, we must revisit a progressive fantasy oft-lamented in these columns, “moderate Islamists.” This is where the Muslim Brotherhood comes in.

Here in the West, “moderate Islamist” is a contradiction in terms. An Islamist is a Muslim who wants to impose sharia (Islam’s repressive law) on a society. In the United States, that would mean replacing our Constitution with a totalitarian, discriminatory system. That is an extremely radical goal, even if the Islamist forswears violence and promises to proceed in Fabian fashion. Therefore, from the perspective of our free society, Islamists are the very antithesis of moderates.

For a post-American transnational progressive like Obama, however, the context that matters is not our society. It is the world. He is the first president to see himself more as a citizen of the world who plays a critical role in American affairs than as an American who plays a critical role in international affairs.

Viewed globally, the Brotherhood seems — in fact, it is — more moderate than ISIS, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and other infamous terrorist groups. I say “other” terrorist groups because the Brotherhood surely is one, which is why it should be formally designated as such under U.S. law.

As I outlined in The Grand Jihad, the Brotherhood promotes terrorism. Its doctrine prominently includes jihad, and it has a long history of violence that runs to this very day. Indeed, Hamas — a terrorist organization that the Brotherhood masquerades as a “political” “resistance” movement — is the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch.

Nevertheless, four things separate this very sophisticated organization from other jihadists:

(1) The Brotherhood pretends to reject violent jihad, especially when dealing with Western audiences.

(2) The Brotherhood opportunistically limits its overt support for jihad to situations that the international Left feels comfortable excusing (e.g., violence against “occupation” by Israel, or by American troops fighting Bush’s “unnecessary war of aggression” in Iraq).

(3) The Brotherhood purports to condemn terrorist acts that it believes, judging from a cost-benefit analysis, are likelier to harm than to advance the sharia agenda (particularly the Brotherhood’s lucrative fundraising apparatus in the West). A good example is the 9/11 atrocities (but note that even there, the Brotherhood, like the rest of the Left, always adds that American foreign policy is jointly culpable).

(4) The Brotherhood aggressively pursues a menu of nonviolent advocacy and sharia proselytism, known in Islamist ideology as dawah. As Brotherhood honcho and major Hamas backer Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi puts it, “We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America, not through the sword but through dawah.”

For present purposes, the most salient of these Brotherhood strategies is the fourth. The menu includes international diplomacy, participation in various countries’ political processes, exploitation of civil-rights laws in various countries’ court systems, strong presence on college campuses (administration, faculty, and student societies), vigorous fundraising under the guise of charity, and aggressive influence peddling in the media and popular culture.

Significantly, it is this menu of nonviolent pressure points, not violent jihad, that is the Brotherhood’s public face in the West. That is what enables the organization to pose as a comparatively moderate political and ideological movement, not a jihadist organization. That is what allows Brotherhood operatives to pass themselves off as “civil-rights activists” and social-justice warriors, not sharia radicals.

This meticulously cultivated moderate pose is the Potemkin foundation on which Obama and other transnational progressives, including a fair number of leading Beltway Republicans, cooperate with the Brotherhood throughout the world.

Obama is anxious to work with the Brotherhood on the Left’s theory that dialogue and cooperation always promote international stability — rather than convey that America’s principles are negotiable. Obama embraces the Brotherhood for the same reason that he negotiates with our enemies in Iran: the illusion that any talk is good talk; that any deal is a boon, regardless of how one-sided. The American wants peace through strength; the post-American globalist prefers peace “processes” and their inevitable peace “prizes.”

As a practical matter, Obama cannot negotiate with ISIS or al-Qaeda. He would if he could, but they won’t. They are interested only in conquest, not compromise. By comparison, the Brotherhood does seem moderate — but only by comparison with these barbaric, full-throttle terror networks. Unlike ISIS, the Brotherhood is amenable to suspending the jihad while taking the concessions it can get through diplomacy and political processes — then going right back to jihad promotion when these alternatives have been exhausted.

The Brotherhood is well regarded by many Sunni Islamist regimes with which our government hopes to cooperate in containing the regional aggression of Shiite Iran (aggression materially supported by Obama’s obsessions with deals and dialogue). There has even been a recent thaw between the Brotherhood and Saudi Arabia: Relations turned icy when the Saudis backed the ouster of Egypt’s Brotherhood-led government; but with Obama canoodling with Tehran, Riyadh has grown desperate for any allies it can find.

On the world stage, the stage they care about, transnational progressives portray the Brotherhood as “moderate Islamists,” partnership with whom is vital if we are to achieve the panacea of global stability.

The con job actually gets worse than that. The Brotherhood has figured out that “democracy” in Muslim-majority countries is the quickest route to imposing sharia. So it has taken on the mantle of “democracy” champions. By backing the Brotherhood, Beltway progressives purport to promote a “democratic transformation” of the Muslim Middle East. The fact that it would be a transformation to an anti-democratic, discriminatory, liberty-crushing system is, for progressives, as irrelevant as the fact that Obama’s empowering of the monstrous Tehran regime destroys the democratic aspirations of pro-Western Iranians. The progressive conception of stability — cooperation with rogues — is no friend of freedom.

The Brotherhood has devoted three generations to building an infrastructure in the United States — an impressive network of affiliated Islamist organizations. To partner with the Brotherhood internationally therefore requires embracing the Brotherhood domestically. But how can Obama and other transnational progressives pull that off? After all, as we’ve seen, the Brothers may seem like “moderate Islamists” when they’re in the same neighborhood as ISIS; but here on our own soil, an Islamist is plainly a radical.

Obama pulls it off by distorting law and history to sanitize the Brotherhood’s American Islamists.

Here, we must consider the progressive version of the Cold War. The Left clings to the conviction that the “mere” advocacy of radical ideology is constitutionally protected, even if what’s being advocated is the overthrow of our constitutional system itself. Symmetrically, the Left also holds that (a) anti-Communism was more dangerous than Communism, and (b) the “living” Constitution can be “evolved” whenever necessary to protect aggressive “dissent” by the Left’s constituencies.

Put it all together and you have Obama’s two core conceits:

First, the Constitution immunizes the Brotherhood’s ideology from government scrutiny. Our agencies must deem anti-American sharia-supremacist advocacy as “constitutionally protected activity,” no matter how virulently anti-American it is; no matter that it supports Hamas (material support for which is actually a felony under American law); and no matter how many Islamists make the seamless transition from Brotherhood indoctrination to membership in other, more notorious terrorist organizations.

Second, anti-terrorism is more of a danger to “our values” (i.e., Obama’s values) than is the regrettable but unavoidable fact that squelching anti-terrorism will result in the occasional terrorist attack — which Obama regards as more of a nuisance fit for law-enforcement procedures than a national-security challenge.

There you have it: Obama is not really pro-jihadist; he is anti-anti-terrorist. As long as they don’t appear to be blowing up buildings, sharia supremacists are not only shielded from scrutiny; our president welcomes the Brotherhood into our national-security apparatus in order to reverse what progressives see as the dangerous excesses of real counterterrorism.

That is how you end up with such lunacy as “Countering Violent Extremism.” That is how the jihad shakes off its post-9/11 shackles on the road to Orlando. So don’t say “radical Islam,” much less obsess over the carnage at the Pulse nightclub. After all, look how stable Obama’s globe has become.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is as senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

Here’s Everything I Wanted To Say About Islam Yesterday, But Couldn’t


by MILO16 Jun 2016



Milo in Orlando


There’s only so much time in the day, especially you’re being snogged by ruggedly handsome Canadian men (it turns out that isn’t an oxymoron) as a “f*** you” to Islam.

So I didn’t say everything I wanted to say about the “religion of peace” at my press conference in Orlando today. But that’s what columns are for!
Here are the full remarks I had prepared for today.
Britain Is A Warning
Now, as you all know, I come from Britain. As a country, I believe it should serve as a warning sign for the United States, which must face its Muslim problem before it is too late.  I myself am leaving the UK behind, as I no longer recognize much of my beloved London.
Gallup poll of Muslims in the UK found that not a single one of the 1,001 people polled thought that homosexuality was morally acceptable. That is compared to 58% of the overall British population who think homos are OK. The same poll found that just 35% of French Muslims and 19% of German Muslims thought homosexuals were morally acceptable.
In my opinion those percentages have probably cratered following Europe’s importation of hordes of young Muslim radicals affectionately known as “rapefugees” on the continent. Some more stats specific to British Muslims from a channel 4 poll:
  • 52% believe homosexuality should be illegal
  • 23% would like to see Sharia law in England
  • 39% believe a woman should always obey her husband, as opposed to 5% of English overall
  • 31% consider it acceptable for a man to have multiple wives
If the United Kingdom remains in the EU, much of this data may change, and not for the better. Large scale Muslim immigration from Turkey and other Muslim countries will introduce more fundamentalist opinions to the country.
Turkey, you’ll keep in mind, is the country whose reaction to the Orlando shooting included the newspaper headline “50 perverts killed in bar.”   In other words, the Muslims pouring into Europe and the UK, and America if your current government democrat AND republican has its way, are not kind easygoing Muslims, they are hardliners.
This speech was supposed to be delivered yesterday on the campus of the University of Central Florida.  UCF cancelled that event and a rescheduled event for today, because the police say they cannot guarantee my safety. After receiving threats, the police and UCF have made plain that it is not safe for a gay man to speak out against Islamic terror in Florida.
This is the school that once hosted Siraj Wahhaj, a terror co-conspirator of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, the “blind Sheikh” who masterminded the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. Apparently speakers calling for the replacement of America’s constitution with a Caliphate suit the university just fine, but a dangerous faggot does not.
De Tocqueville
It is a uniquely American trait that your country has relied on foreigners to take the true stock of American culture. Before I was saying America can be Great Again with Trump, it took a Frenchman named Alexis de Tocqueville to document the miracle of American democracy in his 1835 book “Democracy in America.”
I share something else with de Tocqueville: he was also a critic of Islam. 
He was right about America, and he was right about Islam when he said “I studied the Quran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad.”
America Has a Muslim problem
America has a Muslim problem. Notice my wording carefully here. It isn’t a radical Muslim problem. It isn’t an ISIS problem, an Al Qaeda problem, a Taliban problem, or any of the Muslim terror groups that have sprung up in 2016. The terror attack on Saturday is an expression of mainstream Muslim values.
Barack Obama,The “leader of the free world” is too scared to say this.
In fact I have already referenced Islam both mainstream and radical in reference to this terror attack more often than Obama, who didn’t mention it at all.
I like to imagine President Obama on “Wheel of Fortune” sweating bullets over “Radical Islam” with only a letter or two missing. I think he’d say “I’d like to buy a vowel” or if his teleprompter is broken, just “I uh uh uh uh uh.”
Following Obama’s lead, Hillary Clinton has put out the exact statement we’d expect.  Islam is not our enemy, it is a religion of peace, blah blah blah. Forgive me if I think her speechwriters are imams from Saudi Arabia.
The Left won’t blame Islam
Alarmingly, prominent liberals and homosexuals have fallen right in line.  They are blaming rifles, the NRA, masculinity, video games — anything but Islam.
Dan Savage blames toxic homophobia and toxic gun culture. Well Dan, I have news for you: toxic homophobia has a name, and the name is Islam.
Many will say that what I just said is an Islamophobic statement. Islamophobia, the irrational fear of muslims, is a nonsense term.
Fear of Islam is entirely rational. I can tell you specifically that for gay people, “Allahu Ackbar” is the scariest words we could ever hear.
Gun Panic
Liberals always wait to determine the race and sex of a shooter before deciding how they will attack gun rights. 
Let me give you a clue,  liberals — Muslims don’t just use rifles, they use bombs, airplanes and knives, they like did in Paris Monday night. They will use anything to kill the hated “infidels.” 
Fewer than 300 people were murdered in 2013 with rifles. Nearly 1500 were murdered with knives to put that in perspective.  In fact more than double that number were murdered by hand and fist.
I don’t think you’d ever get gays to line up behind a ban on fisting!
The Anti-Gay Muslim speaker
In April, a Sharia law expert named Sheikh Farrokh Sekaleshfar spoke in Orlando and had some interesting things to say about gays.
Death is the sentence.  We know there’s nothing to be embarrassed about this, death is the sentence … We have to have that compassion for people, with homosexuals, it’s the same, out of compassion, let’s get rid of them now.
Is there a lot of wiggle room there?  It seems pretty clear. When Fred Phelps says his homophobic drivel, Christians are expected to say “That’s not Christianity” — does the responsibility not extend to Islam, when instead of waving signs they shoot 100 people?
Phelps may protest funerals, but Islam creates them.
Honestly, can anyone connect the dots here? A Muslim sharia law expert says gays must die, and then Omar Mateen sells his house to his sister for $100 and starts planning the massacre of 50 gays and the wounding of at least 50 more.
Even the sternest free speech advocate draws the line at incitement to violence, and it’s pretty clear that’s what was going on here.
Omar was Gay
There is one more thing. It is clear at this point that Omar was himself a gay man.
The very latest information is that Omar himself was a regular at the club, some witnesses saw him there a dozen times. His own ex-wife, who as a good muslim he beat, has come out with the fact he was gay.
This is what Islam does to its own gays.
If they are clever enough to not be killed in a middle eastern country, they must develop the most intense self-loathing imaginable.
It is beyond my powers to picture a lifestyle in which your religious leaders, your family, and your larger culture not only disapprove of your lifestyle which is normal for many gays, but actively call for the killing of those that share your lifestyle.
And liberals think “bigoted” Christians are the problem.
Muslims Rely On Liberals
It’s a sad fact that Muslims rely on being enabled by liberals and overly-tolerant leaders from other faiths to help them spread their poisonous ideas.
Consider the response of the Central Florida Interfaith Council to the vile teachings of Sheikh Farrokh. They say “[we] wish congregations would focus more on helping the homeless, poor, and abused instead of persecuting a group that can take care of itself.”
Where is the condemnation of calling for the murder of gays? When did being against murder become a controversial position for religious leaders?
Why Islam Escapes Blame
With all of this information implicating Islam, a reasonable question to ask is why the government and liberal media refuse to speak the plain truth.  
Beyond all complicating factors, the root cause of this mysterious lack of assigning blame to Muslims is that they are now seen as the apex victims in our culture.
Liberals consider everyone that is not a straight white male to be on a pyramid of victimhood. Various minorities shift places on this pyramid For example, white gay men have recently dropped quite close to the bottom. (I think I’m partly responsible for that!) 
For unknown reasons, liberals have put Muslims at the very top of this pyramid.
That is why Muslims can act and speak with impunity against others groups like gays, Jews, and women– they have been placed at the pinnacle of the victim pyramid.
The major flaw of liberal logic, with apologies to the term logic, is that in this case the top of the victim pyramid is intent on murdering and abusing the entire rest of the pyramid!
When we examine liberal thinking, we find that the already shaky logic doesn’t hold up when juxtaposed with other similar cases. Let me provide you with some examples: When supporters of Donald Trump are violently attacked and his rallies interfered with, the liberal response is that the Donald provoked these attacks.
But when Muslims attack gays, there is no outcry that the gays provoked Islam by being Fabulous. Which is it liberals, were they asking for it, or weren’t they?
When a christian bakery chooses not to bake a gay wedding cake due to religious beliefs, they are decried as religious bigots and driven out of business, the target of a national religious shaming.
When Muslims call for the murder of homosexuals in the months leading up to the largest mass shooting in American history, they will receive absolutely no blowback whatsoever, as we are told this was due to assault rifles and toxic masculinity.
When a single picture emerges of Dylann Roof, the Charleston church shooter, posing with a confederate flag, the media and the government attempted to erase the entire history of the South by removing flags, renaming buildings, and destroying monuments.
When Omar Mateen shoots some 100 people in a gay nightclub, the initial reaction of the government and media was to stumble over each other trying to be the first ones to say Islam is a religion of peace and had nothing to do with the attack
Despite the terrorist’s own cries of “Allahu Ackbar,” his call of allegiance to ISIS during a 911 call, and the fact he was acting within the murderous tenets of his religion as preached in the very city of Orlando.
When Eliott Rodger killed six and wounded quite a few people in California, the media called it an act of misogyny and violence against women, despite the fact that he killed more men than women.
Compare that with how they have handled the terror acts of Major Nidal Hassan and Omar Mateen.
Nidal Hassan killed 13 unarmed soldiers and wounded 30 while screaming “Allahu Ackbar.” This case was called workplace violence, and in fact his victims have been denied special benefits due to the victims of a terror attack.
Omar Mateen’s Muslim terror attack has already run the gamut from ‘the rifle did it’ to ‘video games’ and everything in between. Everything except his religion of death.
And here are some more, awkward facts about his religion, and its followers, who liberals want to allow into your country in mass numbers.
According to the Center for Security Policy:
  • 51% of American Muslims want to be allowed to be governed by Sharia Law
  • 30% of American Muslims believe it is legitimate to use violence against those that insult Islam
  • 25% of American Muslims said that violence against Americans can be justified as part of global jihad
  • 33% said that sharia should take precedence over the constitution if they clashed
Around the world, Islam reigns through fear and terror. If the Mullah’s executioners don’t get you, the bombs of his insurgents will. America must not go the same way.
America must not become a country in which people are afraid to kiss. It must not become a country in which artists and satirists are afraid a drawing might get them killed.
The terror attack was on a nightclub, which combines music, alcohol, the genders mixing and in this case homosexuality. The Paris attack on a concert fits this mold as well, as does the Bali bombing in 2002.
You will never please them and will never placate them short of the adoption of Sharia law. So don’t give an inch- they won’t stop taking!
It is time for the LGBT community to come home to conservatism and libertarianism where it belongs. The left no longer has your interests at heart, and is actively making the Muslim problem worse.
It is time for the LGBT community to take up arms in order to defend itself from further muslim attacks. Guns are not icky, gross, or scary. In the next Muslim terror attack on gays, a gun will save your life and those of the people around you.
If you are uncomfortable with guns or associate them with the Christian right, find one of the many LGBT-friendly shooting instructors spread throughout the entire country.  
If you think carrying a concealed pistol will ruin how cute you look in your new jeans, honey get over yourself you aren’t all that anyways.
Remember, as the saying goes, “Armed Gays don’t get bashed”
The Religious right are not your worst enemies. They don’t want to bake your cakes and will not fly rainbow flags, but they want you alive and free. In fact the religious right can now be seen as allies.
While liberals were crying and hashtagging, the notoriously christian chick-fil-a, which is normally closed on Sunday, opened up to feed those donating blood to keep LGBT victims alive.
The LGBT allies of the past might call you brave and like your social media pasts, but the christian right are men and women that will fight for your rights, and more importantly, teach you how to fight and shoot on your own.
Gays and Lesbians must have the mindset of the Jews that fought so many hard conflicts against muslim aggressors in the past. They realized they had sat and watched while Germany committed unspeakable atrocities against their people. They said Never Againand meant it.
Today is the LGBT community’s chance to say Never Again. Never Again will we allow Muslims to slaughter us, and never again will we support politicians who enable despicable terrorists to commit these senseless crimes.

Follow Milo Yiannopoulos (@Nero) on Twitter and Facebook. Android users can download Milo Alert! to be notified about new articles when they are published. Hear him every Friday on The Milo Yiannopoulos Show. Write to Milo at milo@breitbart.com.

Friday, June 17, 2016

Today's Tune: Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds - Bring it On (Live)

Obama and the moderate Muslims


 

As far as the White House is concerned, Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic’s top reporter, is President Barack Obama’s unofficial mouthpiece.

This was one of the many things we learned from The New York Times in David Samuels’s profile of Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes.

In the course of explaining how Rhodes was able to sell Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, despite the fact that it cleared Iran’s path to a nuclear arsenal while giving the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism more than a hundred billion dollars, Samuels reported that “handpicked Beltway insiders like Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic... helped retail the administration’s narrative.”

Given his White House-assigned role, Goldberg’s explanation of Obama’s refusal to discuss radical Islam is worthwhile reading. It reflects what Obama wants the public to believe about his position.

On Wednesday Goldberg wrote that in Obama’s view, discussing radical Islam is counterproductive because it harms the moderates who need to stand up to the radicals.

“Obama,” he wrote, “believes that [a] clash is taking place [not between Western and Muslim civilization but] within a single civilization, and that Americans are sometimes collateral damage in this fight between Muslim modernizers and Muslim fundamentalists.”

Pointing out that there are Muslim fundamentalists, Obama has argued to Goldberg, will only strengthen them against the modernizers.

Over the past week, prominent conservative commentators have agreed with Obama’s position.

Eli Lake from Bloomberg and Prof. John Yoo writing in National Review, among others, criticized presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump for speaking openly radical Islam. Like Goldberg, they argued that Trump’s outspokenness alienates moderate Muslims.

But what moderate Muslims is Obama trying to help? Consider his treatment of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi

Sisi is without a doubt, the most outspoken and powerful advocate of a moderate reformation of Islam, and of Islamic rejection of jihad, alive today.

Sisi has staked his power and his life on his war to defeat the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic State and jihadist Islam in general.

Sisi speaks openly about the danger of jihadist Islam. In his historic speech before the leading Sunni clerics at Cairo’s Al-Azhar University on January 1, 2015, Sisi challenged the clerics to reform Islam.

Among other things he said, “I address the religious clerics. We have to think hard about what we are facing.... It is inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire Islamic nation to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world.

Impossible! “That thinking – I am not saying ‘religion,’ but ‘thinking’ – that corpus of texts and ideas that we have held sacred over the years, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world!...

“Is it possible that 1.6 billion people [Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants – that is 7 billion – so that they themselves may live? Impossible! “I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You imams are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move...because this Islamic nation is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost – and it is being lost by our own hands.”

Certainly since September 11, 2001, no Muslim leader has issues a clearer call for moderation in Islam than Sisi did in that speech. And he has continued to speak in the manner ever since.

No other Muslim leader of note has put everything on the line as Sisi has to defeat the forces of jihad both on the field and in the mosques.

Moreover, Sisi has put his anti-jihadist belief into action by expanding security cooperation between Egypt and Israel and by bringing the Gulf states into his undeclared alliance with the Jewish state.

He has also acted to end the demonization of Israel in the Egyptian media.

Obviously, supporting Sisi is a no-brainer for a leader who insists that his goal is to empower moderate Muslims. And yet, far from being Sisi’s greatest supporter, Obama opposes him.

Since Sisi led the Egyptian military in overthrowing the Obama-backed Muslim Brotherhood regime as it was poised to transform Egypt into a jihadist terrorist state, Obama has worked to undermine him.

Obama has denied Sisi weapons critical to his fight with ISIS in Sinai. He has repeatedly and consistently chastised Sisi for human rights abuses against radical Islamists who, if permitted to return to power, would trounce the very notion of human rights while endangering the US’s key interests in Middle East.

Then there is Iran.

If Obama fears radical Islam, as Goldberg insists that he does, why did he turn his back on the Green Revolution in 2009? Why did he betray the millions of Iranians who rose up against their Islamist leaders in the hopes of installing a democratic order in Iran where women’s rights, and minority rights are respected? Why did he instead side with the radical, jihadist, terrorism-supporting, nuclear weapons-developing and -proliferating ayatollahs? And why has Obama striven to reach an accommodation with the Iranian regime despite its continued dedication to the destruction of the US? Goldberg’s claim that Obama is interested in empowering Muslim moderates in their fight against radicals doesn’t pass the laugh test.

Obama’s actual schemes for relating to – as opposed to acknowledging, fighting or defeating – the forces of jihad involve empowering those forces at the expense of the moderates who oppose them.

Yes, there are exceptions to this rule – like Obama’s belated assistance to the Kurds in Syria and Iraq. But that doesn’t mean that empowering Islamic jihadists at the expense of moderate Muslims is not Obama’s overarching strategy.

In the case of the Kurds, Obama only agreed to help them after spending years training Syrian opposition forces aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood. It was only after nearly all of those forces cut contact with their American trainers and popped up in al-Qaida-aligned militias that Obama began actively supporting the Kurds.

Then there is his behavior toward American jihadists.

Almost every major jihadist attack on US soil since Obama took office has been carried out by US citizens. But Obama has not countered the threat they pose by embracing American Muslims who reject jihad.

To the contrary, Obama has spent the past seven- and-a-half years empowering radical Muslims and Islamic groups like the pro-Hamas terrorism apologists from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).


Salam al-Marayati (MPAC)

This week The Daily Caller reported that MPAC President Salam al-Marayati, is serving as an adviser to the US Department of Homeland Security.

Marayati accused Israel of responsibility for the September 11 attacks on the US, and has called on Muslims not to cooperate with federal counter-terrorism probes. According to the report, Marayati has visited the White House 11 times since 2009.

The Daily Caller also reported that a Syrian immigrant to the US was hired to serve as a member of Obama’s task for on “violent extremism” last year.

Laila Alawa, who joined the task force the day she received US citizenship, referred to the September 11 attacks as an event that “changed the world for good.”

According to the Daily Caller, her task force called for the administration to avoid using the terms “jihad” and “Shari’a” in discussing terrorism – as if Obama needed the tip.


Laila Alawa

So far from helping Muslim moderates, Obama’s actual policy is to help radical Muslims. In stark opposition to his talking points to Goldberg, since he entered office, Obama has worked to empower radical Muslims in the US and throughout the Middle East at the expense of moderates. Indeed, it is hard to think of an anti-jihad Muslim leader in the US or in the Middle East whom Obama has supported.

The victims in Orlando, San Bernadino, Garland, Amarillo, Boston and beyond are proof that Obama’s actual policies are not making America safer. The rise of ISIS and Iran makes clear that his actual policies are making the world more dangerous.

Maybe if his actual policies were what he claims they are, things might be different today. Maybe White House support for anti-jihadist Muslims combined with a purge of all mention of jihad and related terms from the federal lexicon would be the winning policy. But on its face, it is hard to see how forbidding federal employees from discussing jihadists in relevant terms makes sense.

How can enforcing ignorance of a problem help you to solve it? How does refusing to call out the Islamic extremists that Islamic moderates like the Green revolutionaries and Sisi risk their lives to fight weaken them? How does empowering jihad apologists from CAIR and MPAC help moderate, anti-jihad American Muslims who currently have no voice in Obama’s White House? Eli Lake argued that it was by keeping mum on jihad that then-president George W. Bush and Gen. David Petraeus convinced Sunni tribal leaders in Iraq to join the US in fighting al-Qaida during the surge campaign in 2007-2008.

The same leaders now support ISIS.

A counter-argument to Lake’s is that Bush’s policy of playing down the jihadist doctrine of the likes of al-Qaida had nothing to do with the Sunni chieftains’ decision to side with the US forces.

Rather, they worked with the Americans first because the Americans paid them a lot of money to do so. And second, because they believed the Americans when they said that they would stay the course in Iraq.

They now side with ISIS because they don’t trust America, and would rather live under ISIS rule than under Iranian rule.

In other words, for them, the question wasn’t one of political niceties, but of financial gain and power assessments. And that remains the question that determines their actions today.

In the 15 years since September 11, first under Bush, and since 2009, to a more extreme degree under Obama, the US has refused to name the enemy that fights America with the expressed aim of destroying it.

Maybe, just maybe, this is one of the reasons that the Americans have also failed to truly help anti-jihadist – or moderate – Muslims. Maybe you can’t help one without calling out the other.

www.CarolineGlick.com