'What Thy Right Hand Possesses' - The Rape of Kayla Mueller

 

According to people loosely identified by ABC as 'counter terrorism officials' American captive Kayla Mueller was repeatedly tortured and made a sex slave by the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

Mueller's family confirmed to ABC News that government officials have told them that their daughter, who would have turned 27 today, was the victim of repeated sexual assaults by al-Baghdadi.

"We were told Kayla was tortured, that she was the property of al-Baghdadi. We were told that in June by the government," Kayla's parents, Carl and Marsha Mueller, told ABC News today.

Al-Baghdadi, an Iraqi who calls himself "Caliph" as ruler of the Islamic State, personally brought the enslaved 26-year-old humanitarian aid worker from Prescott, Arizona, to be imprisoned inside the home of Abu Sayyaf, a Tunisian in charge of oil and gas revenue for the group, counter-terrorism officials have told ABC News over the past several months.

"Baghdadi was at the house of Sayyaf. He delivered Kayla Mueller, live and in person," one of several counter-terrorism officials briefed on the case told ABC News.

These counter-terrorism officials claim they got this information from debriefings of at least least two Yezedi teenage girls who were also held as sex slaves in the Sayyaf compound as well as from the interrogation of Abu Sayyaf's wife Umm Sayyaf, who was captured in a U.S. raid. Kayla Mueller was reportedly killed by a Jordanian air strike last February.

 

The first thing that occurs to me is that it was incredibly cruel for the Obama Administration to tell Ms. Mueller's family these horrific details. Does any parent ever want to know that their abducted child died in pain and torment? Isn't it enough to know that they'll never see their loved one again?

I have a feeling the release of this news via ABC in this fashion is not coincidental. As I write this, President Barack Hussein Obama is arming and training a Syrian force known as 'The Army of Conquest' to fight ISIS and then Assad. The Army of Conquest (Jaish al Fata) is primarily composed of jihadis drawn from al Nusra and other Islamist groups, and the strategy Obama is pursuing is exactly how ISIS got started, as a part of the Free Syrian Army that this president  armed and trained in connivance with Qatar and Turkey without the knowledge of congress. Having built up one terrorist army and seen it go out of control and become ISIS, President Obama is now building up a second one to fight the first..ignoring the possibility that ISIS and Jaish al Fata might decide to join forces against Assad and the infidels. It might very well be that releasing a news story of this kind is designed to encourage the American people to pick sides and to embrace the Iran deal, with Hezboallah and Iran considered our new 'allies.' The Ayatollah Khameinei has said repeatedly that while Iran might fight ISIS on its own accord at a time of its choosing, the Iranians and their allies are definitely not going to operate in any sort of alliance with the  Great Satan. This, even though we're still arming Hezbollah and they're showing off their American weapons to the American advisers they're sharing bases with in Iraq.

If this seems like an insane 3 ring circus with the Obama Administration arming and training both sides of this conflict and no clear direction or strategy in mind, you get no argument from me. You can't make this stuff up.

Another thing to consider...while as usual the Obama Administration is carefully steering away from even mentioning the word 'Islam' it is worth knowing that this behavior is religiously sanctified by sharia and  the Qu'ran,  in verse 33.50 ("O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee" Pikthal translation) as well as 23.5-6. 4.24 and numerous other places.

This is not to say that all Muslims are rapists of non-Muslim women or that non-Muslims never rape captive women. But only in Islam is it religiously sanctified. The Bible actually forbids such practices and was the first recorded document to give women in that situation any rights at all, as laid out in Leviticus. But based on the Qu'ran, what happened to Ms. Mueller, a captive, is fully in accord with sharia. Mohammed himself took many sex slaves.

President Obama is bringing a lot of Muslims into America via diversity visas and refugee asylum programs similar to Europe's from countries like Syria, Somalia, Pakistan and other countries where sharia law based on the Qu'ran is practiced and the traditional cultures are built around these beliefs, including honor killings and FGM ( female genital mutilation).

Ironically enough, Kayla Mueller, who was something of a career activist actually worked for a while with the pro-terrorism International Solidarity Movement, whom supports the Palestinian Authority and Hamas where these practices occur with distressing regularity.

At last count, something like 800,000 Muslims have entered the US under these programs since Barack Obama took office and the screening has been fairly minimal. As I write this, another surge of refugees to America is being planned for Syrian Muslims by the Obama Administration with screening done not by our FBI but by the UN.

Europe has seen major problems develop by importing huge amounts of Muslims, many of whom are not at all compatible with European culture, are disproportionately on public assistance, want to impose sharia in their new home countries, and strongly resist assimilation. Crime among Muslim refugees in Europe is rampant, especially rapes involving Muslim males and non-Muslim females. For example, Stockholm, Sweden, once relatively crime free for a city its size has experienced a 300% increase in crime since it began importing substantial numbers of Muslim refugees into the country. Rapes have increased to the point where Sweden is one of the rape capitols of the world, with the second highest number of rapes per capita of any country on earth.

The vast majority of these rapes are committed by Muslim immigrants or their teenage sons whom may hardly think of these infidel women as anything more than 'what thy right hand possesses.'

Whether we want to change America in this fashion is a conversation the Obama Administration refuses to even consider, but I think it's a conversation we deserve to have as a nation, and sooner rather than later.

All human beings are equal, but cultures are not.As Kayla Mueller discovered too late, she wasn't in Arizona anymore.

Cornell Dean: 'Why Yes, ISIS Is Welcome To Train Jihadis On Campus!'

James O'Keefe strikes again.Somewhere in heaven, Andrew Breitbart is smiling.

O'Keefe sent an operative with the alias 'Ali' to visit Cornell’s assistant dean for students, Joseph Scaffido, who agreed to inviting an ISIS “freedom fighter’’ to conduct a “training camp” for students which Scaffido compared to 'running a sports camp.

“You would be allowed to do something like that. It’s just like bringing in a coach, to do a training, a sports trainer or something,”

He also endorsed Cornell sponsoring a pro-“Islamic State Iraq and Syria” group on campus, which would provide material support for terrorists (a felony)in the form of “care packages, whether it be food, water, electronics.”

How about supporting Hamas?

No problem at all, Scaffido said. Apparently he's fine with genocide against Jews as well.

“The university is not going to look at different groups and say, ‘You’re not allowed to support that group because we don’t believe them’ or something like that. I think it’s just the opposite. I think the university wants the entire community to understand what’s going on in all parts of the world,” Scaffido said.

I actually would love to see Mr. Scaffido meet up with some of those 'sports coaches' from Islamic State. He obviously doesn't need his head anyway.

Cornell was shocked and embarrassed by this, said that in no way does the university support these views and that Joseph Scaffido was going to be fired for potentially involving the university in a felony violation of federal law.

Oh, wait...none of the above! In response to inquiries from the New York Post, here's what Cornell had to say:


“Cornell fully supports the free exchange of ideas and does not review or control the political ideology of our students. We do not, of course, tolerate unlawful advocacy of violence, and the comment about training by ISIS freedom fighters does not reflect university policy,” said Joel Malina, Cornell’s vice president for university relations.

It would be quite interesting to see what other groups Mr. Scaffido has been assisting to get funds from the university and use it's facilities, now wouldn't it? And even more fascinating to see which ones he's deliberately impeded and discouraged. 'Free exchange of ideas' obviously includes Hamas, the Taliban, Islamic State, and Hezbollah on the menu...can I get fries with that?

These are the people who are mind raping your sons and daughters.

A fish rots from the head. So does a nation.

The Burning Man And The Walking Dead

By now, the burning alive of captured Jordanian pilot Moaz al-Kasasbeh by Islamic State has become common knowledge.

His captors imprisoned him in a cage, doused it with gasoline, and made a trail of gas leading to it, so that he could see the flames approaching. They then lit it on fire, filmed his agony as it spread to the cage and engulfed it and then put out a slick,professionally produced video of the whole thing, released by Islamic State's Al-Furqan media center. The video was titled 'Healing the Believers' Chests,' which has a meaning worth exploring it detail.

The video itself started with footage of Jordan's King Abdullah essentially declaring war on Islamic State and announcing his support for the anti-IS coalition. It then interspersed shots of al-Kasasbeh sitting in a darkened room and giving details on the air strikes he participated in against Islamic state with TV-style news reports showing the results of the airstrikes. And of course, an emphasis on scenes dead and dying child victims. It then cuts to the immolation of al-Kasasbeh.

The reaction from the West was illuminating. Both UK PM David Cameron and British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond referred to this as 'murder'. President Barack Hussein Obama's statement didn't even go that far:



“You know, I just got word of the video that had been released. I don’t know the details on the confirmation. Should in fact this video be authentic, it’s just one more indication of the viciousness and barbarity of this organization. And I think we will redouble the vigilance and determination on the part of global coalition to make sure that they are degraded and ultimately defeated. It also indicates the degree to which whatever ideology they are operating off of, it’s bankrupt. We’re here to talk about how to make people healthier and make their lives better. And this organization appears only interested in death and destruction. Thank you very much, everybody.”

Both PM Cameron and President Obama's remarks reveal a great deal about their mindset. To Cameron and Hammond, this is a 'murder' carried out by criminals. President Obama didn't even go that far, just seeing IS as some malcontents who need 'increased vigilance' and 'determination' to be thwarted. That's how they see it..not as war, or as terrorism or, mercy no, anything to do with Islam, but just a band of criminals.

Want to know how Islamic State sees it?

As a wartime execution, as tactics, as fully justified by Islam and not as murder at all. And as barbaric as they are, they have a point. Murder, after all, has a personal element, for sex, for money or to shut someone up. This wasn't murder.

Perhaps it's worth remembering that Islamic State was originally armed and trained by the Obama Administration,  and that their enemies were Hezbollah, the Syrian forces of Basher Assad and the corrupt Shi'ite Iraqi government and its troops. They did not attack U.S. forces or those of any European country. The way they see it, we declared war on them, and without formally announcing it as the Qu'ran mandates. And it was the U.S. that intervened with air strikes, that has put together a loose coalition of Sunni autocrats to attack them and has been allowing Shi'ite Iran to intervene directly and wage war on them.

Of course, after the brutality Islamic State has made its trademark, especially  on any non-Muslims like Christians and Yazidis, a case could be made for going to war against them. But it wasn't and we haven't. All we've done is supply some arms and advisers to the Kurds and the Iraqi Shi'ite army and perform some air strikes and drone attacks.

Because to actually go to war against Islamic State might also involve certain problems, since literally everything Islamic State is doing is fully justified by the Qu'ran. That's why the Obama Administration and UK PM David Cameron are ever so careful not even to whisper the word 'Islam'  where IS is concerned.

Now, Jordan, being an Arab Muslim State did declare war on IS, and publicly. That's exactly why Islamic State showed that footage of the King doing so in their video, why they were careful to include the Jordanian pilot's confession of participating in the bombing attacks and why they were careful to show a number of brutalized children that IS  claimed were victims of those attacks.

You see, they learned this tactic from Hamas and Hezbollah. And while they probably may have figured out by now that it only works in creating an uproar in places like Europe and in the UN if it's Israel defending itself, it will likely have that desired effect on many Muslims.

In fact some Arab members of the coalition were already easing themselves out, although the White House is claiming that they're all still committed to defeating Islamic State and were just taking a breather.We'll see, but it's a fact right now that only Jordan is now more committed than it was after Moaz al-Kasasbeh's death. That's why the United Arab Emirates (UAE), a big part of the coalition,  just sent a squadron of F-16s to Jordan that the  Obama Administration just gifted the UAE as a 'reward' for joining up .

King Hussein's renewed commitment can be understood because Jordan is a U.S. client state heavily dependent on foreign aid, and because al-Kasasbe's death has been a unifying issue in an increasingly disunified kingdom. How long that lasts is anyone's guess.

The Sunni autocrats are wary for a couple of reasons. First, as they see the Obama Administration becoming increasingly closer to Iran, they also understand now that the Sunni forces of Islamic State represent one of the few checks to Iran in the region.

Obama allowing Iranian backed Shi'te rebels to overthrow a Sunni ally of America in Yemen and essentially okaying an Iranian colony and a brand new strategic threat to the Saudis and the UAE to emerge was a major wake up call. The Saudis are now bracketed by Iranian client states from the north in Iraq and from the south by Yemen, and they fear being surrounded and overwhelmed.



The second reason is that the Saudis and the other Sunni autocracies are gradually becoming leery of fighting Islamic state has to do with their need to placate conservative religious constituencies in their own kingdoms. However barbaric Islamic State seems to us, their ideology isn't 'whatever it is'  to quote President Obama but a mainstream fundamental reading of the Qu'ran and Sharia.

Which of course, is the core of the matter.

The fighters for Islamic State have a cause, one they're deeply devoted to, the creation of a Islamic Caliphate.Their devotion to that cause is absolute, so absolute that they unhesitatingly attacked and destroyed a professional Iraqi army that vastly outnumbered them and had far better equipment, including tanks. They not only have attracted the loyalty of numerous young men and women from Europe, the U.S. and elsewhere in both the West and the Muslim world, but pledges of loyalty and allegiance from numerous Muslim groups like al-Nusra and Boko Haram.

They are united, their fighters are disciplined and effective, and have a clear objective, that of victory, because they know they're in a war and so do their leaders. They have both media savvy and a good knowledge of what inspires their fellow Muslims..or makes them quake with fear. For instance, the burning of the body of a Muslim is strictly forbidden, because according to sharia it prevents them from ascending to the Muslim Paradise. Burning al-Kasasbe to death was Islamic State's way of declaring al-Kasasbe a Kuf'r, a non-Muslim for his role in killing his fellow Muslims. Rest assured that message got across to the men Islamic State's warriors will be fighting against.They now have the symbol of the Burning Man embedded in their consciousness,almost like a flag Islamic State's warriors can carry before them into battle.

On the other hand, facing them, we have nothing but division among our forces. With  the exception of the Kurds, what we have is an increasingly wary Sunni coalition that doesn't trust Iran or  our commander -in chief, and with good reason. And the Kurds are getting just enough military supplies and equipment from the U.S. to hold their own with Islamic State, as a bow to the wishes of Turkey, Iran and Iraq, none of whom want the Kurds to be strong enough to assert their independence.

We also have the demoralized Iraqi army, the Iran backed Shi'ite militias including Hezbollah, and Iranian Revolutionary Guard troops, all of whom are playing their game, not ours, which is to create a nuclear armed Shi'ite bloc of their own for the Ayatollah. And stuck in the middle, we have our handful of U.S. advisers and our sea and air forces who at present are handcuffed with rigid rules of engagement and tactics that essentially ensure that victory - whatever that is - isn't a serious option.

Our leaders go to some pains to announce that we're not in a war , and refuse to even name whom we're fighting against. There's no clear goal or objective,beyond our disconnected president's vague throw away notions of 'defeating and degrading them' something he appears not to be overly concerned about anyway.There's no real strategy at all, our troops are demoralized over a lack of mission and even our generals are openly complaining about how non-entities without military knowledge or experience like NSA Susan Rice are micromanaging things.


What this president does seem to be concerned with primarily is empowering Iran in the region, a strategic nightmare and a deadly course for America.

Let no one assume that we will somehow escape the specter of the Burning Man,either the one Islamic State carries or one launched by Iran at the Great Satan at a time of their choosing.

Under Barack Hussein Obama's failed leadership, we have become vulnerable to a degree unimaginable before he took office. And if that does not change, we are on the road to becoming the Walking Dead.

Obama, Netanyahu And Congress: The Real Inside Story Raises Further Questions

President Obama's latest escapade involving Israel says a great deal about his deep animus towards Israel. And it raises an important question.

Our story starts with Speaker of the House John Boehner inviting Israeli PM Benyamin Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress on Iran and on Islamist terrorism in March.

Boehner's rationale for this was a widely popular bi-partisan bill up in congress calling for large scale sanctions on Iran if the Obama administration is unable to craft a deal limiting Iran's nuclear weapons capacity. President Obama, who watered down the previous sanctions and unilaterally dispensed with them said bluntly that he'd veto any legislation regarding Iran, and made a special point of mentioning this in his State of the Union address.

President Obama's logic is that he and Secretary Kerry just need a little more time....in spite of three missed deadlines for a deal that have seen Iran's nuclear stockpile actually grow.

There’s really zero transparency about what’s actually going on. IAEA inspectors have not been allowed inside major Iranian bases like Fardo, and among many things, Secretary John Kerry was apparently 'misinformed' when he claimed over a year ago that he had an agreement with the Islamic Republic that to cease operations at their heavy water reactor at Arak, a facility with no peaceful applications designed to produce weapons-grade plutonium. The IAEA hasn't been allowed to inspect Arak either. Nor has it been shut down, as Kerry originally told us. Meanwhile, the Iranian Majlis is on the verge of passing legislation mandating that Iran increase its nuclear enrichment.

Small wonder Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ), a co-sponsor of the senate version of the bill called what President Barack Hussein Obama had to say about Iran as 'talking points straight from Tehran.'

Even the Washington Post awarded the president “Three Pinocchios” out of a possible four for his dishonest and delusional remarks on Iran during his speech.

So it's quite natural that Speaker Boehner would want the Prime Minister of Israel, who's been outspoken on Iran's nuclear threat to address congress to increase consensus on a bill that would almost certainly have to override a presidential veto. And Israeli PM Benyamin Netanyahu, whose country gets threatened with annihilation by Iran every other week was happy to accept.

That's when the White House literally went berserk.

 

The president claimed that congress had disrespected him by not clearing Netanyahu's visit with the White House, although in fact congress has the legal right to invite anyone it wants to to address a joint session.

But the president's special wrath was directed at Benyamin Netanyahu,and that was no accident, as we'll see. The president announced that he would not meet with or otherwise acknowledge Netanyahu's presence during his visit. And unnamed White House officials were quoted in the press as saying that Netanyahu had 'forgotten that Obama's going to be president for another year and a half', and that Netanyahu was 'spitting in our faces' by daring to come to America without an official presidential invitation. There were dark statements about how there would 'be a price to pay.'

The president tried to justify this by saying that the invitation by congress was a breach of protocol, and against U.S. policy to meet with a head of state this close to a national election.

He lied about that too.

For instance, a couple of months before the British general election, President Obama invited British PM David Cameron to the White House in a high profile visit that was essentially an endorsement. And just a couple of weeks ago, only four months before what's shaping up as the tightest UK election in years, the president, who is more popular in the UK than he is here did the same thing,having a meeting with Cameron, a lavish photo-op and calling him 'a great friend' and one of his "closet and most trusted partners in the world."

 

There have been other occasions. Remember the president's love affair with former Islamist Egyptian leader Mohammed Morsi in the run up to the Egyptian elections?

The president also had the White House release a leak alleging that Israeli Mossad Head Tamir Pardo had personally warned US senators against further Iran sanctions. 

At that point, I got fairly concerned, because to my knowledge no one in Israel's security apparatus has ever said anything like that..if anything the reverse, that increased sanctions had the best chance to bring Iran to the table for real concessions. For the head of Mossad to say this would amount to him creating his own private foreign policy.

I can tell you now without any doubt whatsoever that this was a complete fabrication by the White House, and I heard it directly from several people who definitely ought to know.

Moreover, the Mossad released a public statement on the matter. And it was not exactly diplomatic in tone.

A senior Israeli official delivered an uncommonly harsh attack on US President Barack Obama's administration Thursday evening, following the American report that alleged that Mossad Head Tamir Pardo had warned US senators against further Iran sanctions, in contradiction of Israel's official stance.

"The fraudulent claims against the Mossad Head were raised by the Americans yesterday, despite a message that had been transmitted to them on Tuesday by Intelligence Minister [Yuval] Steintz,” the senior Israeli source told Channel 2 news.

He added that Israel had gone over the minutes of the meeting between Pardo and the delegation of senators, and that Pardo had not said what was attributed to him.

"Leaking the Mossad Head's statements, even if they had not been falsified, is a serious breach of all the rules,” the senior source added. “Friends do not behave like this. Information from a secret meeting must not leak out.” [...]

"The Head of Mossad did not say that he opposes additional sanctions on Iran,” said the spy agency Thursday.

"Mossad Head Tamir Pardo met on January 19, 2015, with a delegation of US senators,” Mossad said in a statement. “The meeting was held at the request of the senators and with the prime minister's approval. At the meeting, the Head of Mossad stressed the extraordinary effectiveness of the sanctions that have been placed on Iran for several years in bringing Iran to the negotiating table.”

"The Head of Mossad noted that in negotiating with Iran, a policy of 'carrots and sticks' must be adopted, and there are not enough 'sticks' nowadays,” it added.

Furthermore, said the agency, he “said specifically that the agreement that is being formed with Iran is bad and could lead to a regional arms race.”

Both the Mossad and the Israeli government are livid over this, and that can't help but affect the relationship with the U.S. This indeed is hardly the way an ally acts.

Of course, the real reason for all this goes well beyond the president's ego. It’s very much about the Israeli elections.

Ha'aretz is Israel's very Left wing newspaper beloved of the main stream press here and in Europe because of its political stance, even though few Israelis bother reading it.The paper's most popular edition is its English language one, although it also publishes in Hebrew. There was one article in the Hebrew edition that by an interesting coincidence, Ha'aretz decided not to translate and include in its English edition.

It was translated by IMRA (Independent Media Review Analysis), and here's a summary:

 Haaretz reporter Roi Arad revealed in an article in the Hebrew edition
today (January 26th)  that the foreign funded organization, “One Voice”, is bankrolling the V-2015 campaign to defeat Binyamin Netanyahu’s national camp in the March
2015 Knesset Elections.

One indication of the generous financing is that it has now flown in a team of five American campaign experts (including Jeremy Bird, the Obama campaign's national field director) who will run the campaign out of offices taking up the ground floor of a Tel Aviv office building.

V-2015 is careful not to support a specific party - rather “just not Bibi”.
As such, the foreign funds pouring into the campaign are not subject to
Israel’s campaign finance laws.

 The alliance of Yitzhak Herzog and Tzipi Livni jumped in hard on the controversy, claiming that Netanyahu is destroying Israel's relationship with the United States...and they're using Obama's money and campaign muscle to trumpet that message in the Israeli media. One of the major weaknesses of the Israeli left is that they have zero credibility with the majority of Israel's public when it comes to national security. .They now have an issue to exploit to attempt to cover for that.

The President’s strategy is blatantly obvious. He's directly interfering with democratic election of a U.S. ally in order to elect a more 'flexible' Israeli government that will cave in to Hamas/Fatah's demands. Given that his friends in Iran have already said they've given Hamas and Fatah advanced missile technology and will wage war against Israel from Palestinian controlled territory in Judea and Samaria (AKA The West Bank) this attempt to place Israel in a vulnerable position with indefensible pre '67 borders goes beyond mere malice and crosses the line to overt hostility.

The last time this happened, in 1999, President Clinton used the same tactic against Netanyahu in order to bring the hapless Ehud Barak and Labor to power. He funded Labor's campaign against Netanyahu and sent James Carville and Stanley Greenberg to run the campaign. Barak won, but the result was the Second Intifada, the death of hundreds of Jews in Arafat's war on Israeli civilians and the ascension of Ariel Sharon and Likud in 2001.

But President Obama's attempt to subvert Israel's election may actually backfire badly . Things are quite different today. Clinton was personally popular in Israel then, and Barack Hussein Obama is not, to say the least. Also, the stakes are a lot higher than they were in 1999, and most Israelis know it.

Aside from President Obama apparently being willing to try to deliver the Jews to the Iranians and those Arabs whom identify themselves as Palestinians in order to appease them or to destroy a valuable U.S. alliance in the process, I think it's time we took a look at whom this president protects and empowers and whom he attacks. And that goes beyond Israel.

The terrorist group Boko Haram in Nigeria have already pledged allegiance to the new Caliphate of Islamic State and have been responsible for thousands of deaths in Africa. They already control much of Northern Nigeria, and are attacking major cities like Maiduguri.

 

Many of their arms came from Moamar Ghaddaffi's stocks in Libya, which Islamists got their hands on after President Obama's illegal intervention in favor of jihadis and Islamists in Benghazi. The Nigerian army has frequently found itself outgunned in trying to protect its country.

The current Nigerian government under President Goodluck Jonathan has always had friendly relations with Israel, and in an effort to fight off Boko Haram negotiated a major arms deal with the Israelis which included Boeing CH-47 Chinook helicopters.

The Obama Administration stopped the sale of the desperately needed arms for a 'review.'

The transfer of such aircraft requires a review to determine its “consistency with US policy interests,” Obama administration officials told The Jerusalem Post.

Reviews of this kind take place in the case of “any requests for one country to transfer US-origin defense items to another country,” said Ned Price, White House Assistant Press Secretary and Director for Strategic Communications.

According to a report initially published in a local Nigerian daily, ThisDay, Nigerian government officials believe a large sale was halted because of “unfounded allegations of human rights violations by our troops,” one such official is quoted saying. The Nigerian official is not named in the report.

“This,” he continued, “after the office of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had initially approved the purchase.”

US officials tell the Post such transfers must be consistent with a policy directive revised by President Barack Obama in January, which outlines the criteria for conventional-weapons sales.

The ostensible reason given was a report by the highly suspect NGO Amnesty International, which accused the Nigerian forces of 'human rights violations.' Since this report took place months ago, back in August of last year, why would a review take place now when the arms are desperately needed, especially after all of the presidential rhetoric linking Boko Haram with al-Qaeda and Islamic State?

The answer, again, is elections.

Nigeria's elections occur next month and President Goodluck Jonathan, whose support comes mainly from the Christian south of the country is running against Muhammadu Buhari, a retired Muslim general and former hard line dictator with Islamist leanings who has been defeated three times before in his attempts to regain power. His power base in mainly in the Muslim North.

The biggest issue in the election? Protecting the country from the attacks of Boko Haram. And with arms shipments to the Nigerian Army suspended or severely curtailed, President Jonathan's chances for re-election continue to slip, and Buhari's chances improve.

That's exactly how the Obama Administration wants it.

Just a few days ago, none other than Secretary of State John Kerry visited Nigeria to meet with both candidates.

Mr. Kerry warned that the level of American support would be influenced by the determination of Nigeria’s politicians to carry out fair and peaceful elections.

“Bottom line, we want to do more,” he said. “But our ability to do more will depend to some degree on the full measure of credibility, accountability, transparency and peacefulness of this election.” [...]

“There has been a history of violence being fomented by political parties here in previous elections,” a senior State Department official told reporters before Mr. Kerry’s meetings.

“We hope that if there is any doubt about the election that they will use their court system and not encourage their supporters to go into the streets,” said the official, who declined to be identified under the department’s protocol for briefing reporters.

There's no mention of it in this linked New York Times article, but the 'violence' involved came almost exclusively from Muslim supporters of Buhari after he was defeated by Jonathan the last time out almost two to one,in 2011. And it is Buhari who is threatening violence again if he loses this time.

Yet the Obama Administration is doing its very best to put Buhari in power by holding up desperately needed arms shipments and threatening the current president.

Scoff at this all you want. But by delaying arms shipments to Nigeria's beleaguered army, the Obama Administration is assisting Boko Haram and doing its best to help a Muslim former military dictator who already was involved in inciting sectarian violence to take power.

Whether it's Africa, Libya, Iran, Turkey, Syria Egypt or Hamas/Fatah, one thing that is consistent is the Obama Administration's support and empowerment of Islamists and its opposition and attempts to weaken  any of our allies like Israel, Nigeria's Jonathan Goodluck or the al-Sissi government in Egypt who oppose them. It's a clear, unmistakeable  pattern.

Perhaps it's time we started asking why.

UPDATE: Proof that Obama deliberately manufactured the nonsense about Netanyahu 'disrespecting the president'....from the New York Times, no less.

Jihad,Islam and The French Farce In Paris

 

By now the world knows about the latest atrocity carried out in Paris by jihad terrorists. The wholesale murder of the staff of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo including its editor 'Charb,' Stephane Charbonnier. The murders at the magazine, the shooting of a female police officer, a car bomb exploding at a local synagogue, a gunman invading a kosher supermarket filled with women and children and killing four shoppers and wounding a number of others..these have all been covered by the media and digested by the world at large.

For a couple of days, this made headlines, but by now the world has processed it. And it is last week's news,because to really focus on it would mean we'd have to actually do something about it.

Beslan, 9/11, Boston, Bali, Mumbai, London, Itamar, Jerusalem, Nairobi, Fort Hood, Sydney, a never ending list..and those are just the ones we notice,because they're either in the West, or involve the murder of Westerners. The ones that don't barely rate a mention. In Nigeria last week for instance, Boko Haram, who have already pledged their support and allegiance to Islamic State attacked the city of Baga, near Lake Chad. The known death toll from that one attack alone is over 2,000. And it may go higher, once the final figures come in.

Chant with me, why don't you..'black lives matter!' Except when they're murdered by Muslim terrorists.

I wonder if it has occurred to many of us how much our society has normalized terrorism committed by Islamist fascists? The limitations to our freedoms we've already accepted without complaint? The millions in additional tax dollars we're forced to spend? The handcuffs we've put on ourselves and the forces we enlist to protect us because we're unwilling to be honest?

We have become acclimated to accepting Islamist terrorism as the norm, as business as usual. We've been doing it for so long it barely moves us, let alone raises the revulsion and the resolve to stop it, the normal reaction. Instead, we hide behind inane rhetoric, insipid and cowardly rationalizations and yes, hash tags.

If we were really all Charlie Hebdo, or Theo Van Gogh, or Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or Molly Norris, or Kurt Westergaard, or Drummer Lee Rigby, or Daniel Pearl or the Fogel Family, this would have ended long ago, because we would have risen up en masse to demand that the political class do something to stop this once and for all.

We haven't. We simply ingest the latest atrocity and continue to sleepwalk. After a few words from our sponsor, of course. And the usual 'Muslims fear backlash' stories, although somehow that backlash never seems to occur.

A case in point is the recent 'Unity rally' in Paris. No one, of course, would dare call it a rally against Islamist fascism, a rally against 'radical Islam' or even a rally against terrorism. No, it was all about unity, with signs saying 'Je suis Charlie' and flags and forty world leaders marching together in the streets of Paris. Nice, until you look behind the facade.

Among the participants was the Emir of Qatar which openly funds terrorism. Also at the rally was Turkish PM Ahmet Davutoglu, who country has more journalists in jail than any other NATO member for what's labeled as 'un-Turkish sentiments', whose Islamist government is a haven for Hamas. It is also the country where at least one of the killers, Hayat Boumeddiene was allowed to enter France freely via a ticket from Istanbul to Spain and the country from which she was allowed to escape back to Syria.

And of course, Palestine's unelected Dictator Mahmoud Abbas was there too. Yes, Abbas, the Holocaust denier with his history of terrorism as Arafat's second in command, Abbas who is allied with the genocidal Hamas in a unity government. Interesting how that came about.

Israeli PM Benyamin Netanyahu had wanted to show up in Paris to take part as one of the world leaders involved. You would think he'd be a natural participant, given Israel's history of combating Islamist terrorism, and especially since about a third of the victims of the attacks were Jews.

But the Israeli PM was told outright by the French government that he was persona non grata and unwelcome, since his presence was deemed 'divisive' and would 'make having the rally difficult.'

After mulling it over for a day, Netanyahu simply told the French he was coming anyway. My sources differ on whether Abbas had already been expressly invited (the Palestinian Authority insists he was, and a private meeting between Abbas and Holland scheduled the next day seems to bear this out) or whether he was invited simply out of spite towards Netanyahu,but the fact remains that the leader of a democracy with a free press and an admirable record fighting exactly the forces responsible for last weeks' carnage was insulted and initially shunned while nations that finance and support terrorism and rigidly repress any criticism were courted and invited.

I doubt having Abbas there went a long way towards reassuring French Jews.

President Obama, for once, made the right choice in avoiding this farce although for all the wrong reasons. Because nothing is going to change, at least in the near term.

French Prime Minister Manuel Valls made a brave speech about France waging “a war against terrorism, against jihadism, against radical Islam, against everything that is aimed at breaking fraternity, freedom, solidarity.”

But Socialist François Hollande is France's president and the one with power, and he most definitely did not echo Valls' sentiments. Neither did President Obama or Attorney General Eric Holder, whom was present in Paris but pointedly did not attend the rally.

France's Socialist government and President Hollande in particular are hugely unpopular in France, although he got a slight boost in popularity from last weeks' events that will soon fade as things return to normal.The Socialist's election victory, in part, occurred because they carried the Muslim vote almost in a bloc.At this point, they need all the political support they can muster, so rest assured that Prime Minister Valls likely received a quiet spanking at the Élysée Palace and no 'war' is going to be declared just now.

To win a war, you first have to be willing to name your enemy and be honest about his motivations. In spite of the perpetrators murdering people while yelling 'Allahu akbar!' and 'the Prophet has been avenged', most of Europe as well as the Obama Administration were quick to say this had nothing to do with Islam. Even PM Valls referred to 'radical Islam,' and other apologists on the Left like our president referred to the perpetrators as 'radicals' who are 'distorting a peaceful religion. Others referred to them as fanatics, or as simply insane.

They aren't any of those things. They're Islamists engaged in jihad, with their actions justified by a fairly mainstream reading of the Qu'ran, even if many Muslims don't act on it - yet.

But that reading, the 'radicalization' the political class mentions every once and a while has gained precedence in the west and is directly attributable to the policies they and their willing tools have promulgated in Europe and America.

They have appeased Islamism and empowered it at every turn. They have imported huge numbers of Muslim immigrants,many of whom come  with a culture that despises western freedom into our countries without bothering to ask the citizens they ostensibly represent and have increasingly not insisted on these new migrants to  assimilate or respect the western culture of the host country. Instead, they have pushed 'multiculturalism' to force western culture to twist like a pretzel to appease and accommodate something that is essentially incompatible.

They've allowed and continued to allow the cancer of Islamism to grow. turning a blind eye to Islamist mosques being constructed with foreign money, to radical imams imported to promulgate jihad and in America, subversive groups like CAIR, MPAC, The Islamic Trust of North America(ITNA) the MSA and similar Muslim Brotherhood front groups to be funded and nurtured. They've been doing it for years.

The Obama Administration has even protected such groups when they were clearly involved in money laundering and material aid to officially designated terrorist entities.

Contrary to being 'crazy' or fanatic, in action these warriors of jihad are calm, deliberate and well trained as you can see from the video below. And savage, executing a badly wounded policeman whom was no threat to them as he begged for his life.



And even that shows deliberation, The policeman in question happened to be Muslim and undoubtedly mentioned it in an attempt to survive. He was shot dead in this video, reproduced worldwide, to send a message to other Muslims. Terrorism is a tactic, not a madness and this killing along with all of the others last week was tactical, not mindless butchery.

Yes, it is about Islam, although not about all Muslims. Does any rational person still doubt it? Ahmad Harqan is an Egyptian civil rights activist raised this question on a popular TV show..'What is ISIS doing now that the Prophet Mohammed and his followers didn't do?'



For his outspokenness, Hargan narrowly escaped being assassinated and was later jailed briefly for blasphemy under article 98 in the Egyptian penal code,but his point is a valid one. All one needs to do is consult the Qu'ran and read what it says and the Hadiths, the recording of Mohamed's life, times and sayings by his followers.

To themselves and to a significant number of Muslims, Islamic State is merely following in Mohammed's footsteps. Until we understand that and obtain new political leadership that understands that and is willing to act on it seriously, we will continue to wallow in this sordid, self-defeating funk as the attacks continue to grow and get more serious.

It's time we awakened.

Joe Biden To Ayaan Hirsi Ali: “Let me tell you one or two things about Islam.”

Author and speaker Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an outspoken advocate for freedom, a champion of women's rights in Islam, and a perceptive critic of Islamism and Salafist Islam.

You might recall that she was supposed to receive an honorary degree from Brandeis University earlier this year but was 'disinvited' when Muslim Brotherhood fronts like CAIR and the Muslim Student's Association pressured the university to caving in, a fairly hypocritical decision in view of some of the other people they've awarded these degrees to.

In a recent interview with the Washington Examiner, she explained that many westerners have no clue what goes on in many Islamic countries, and why she thought the Left was so protective of Islamist extremists:

“They feel all religions are the same, and they’re not,” she observed. “I think if I adopt the position in good faith to multiculturalists and leftists, I would say [they take the position they do] because they see them [Muslims] as victims. They see them as victims of the white man and so they think: ‘Let’s protect them from the white man. Let’s protect them from capitalism.’… That is misguided at best and malicious at worst.”

“Wherever [Islamists] gain power, you see exactly what they do: The first thing they do is they chase women out of the public space, force them to cover up, beat them up, rape them, sell them into slavery,” Hirsi Ali said.

She also revealed an amusing encounter with the man who's just a heartbeat away from the White House, our current vice president Joe Biden: Hirsi Ali recalled meeting Vice President Joe Biden at a Washington event. He informed her that “ISIS had nothing to do with Islam.” When she disagreed with him, Biden actually responded: “Let me tell you one or two things about Islam.”

“I politely left the conversation at that,” Hirsi Ali said. “I wasn’t used to arguing with vice presidents.”

Our vice president has attempting to school someone on Islam who was raised a devout Muslim,lived in 3 Islamic countries,endured female genital mutilation when she was only 5, was a member of the female auxiliary of the Muslim Brotherhood and fled to the West to avoid a forced arranged marriage.

Anyone think she might know just a tiny bit more about Islam and radical Islam than Joe Biden?

This one's even funnier than his remark during the '08 vice presidential debates insisting that the U.S. had kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon.

This would be even funnier except for the fact that Joe Biden,who spent his life on the Senate foreign affairs committee actually thinks he's an authority on these matters...

Oh, Canada...

There is a nobility to the task of being an honor guard at a memorial to the fallen.It is a way to remember the sacrifice of those whom came before, of those who were willing to die so that future generations could live.

 

One of those men was Cpl. Nathan Cirillo. He was one of three soldiers guarding Canada's War memorial in Ottawa when he was shot down by a craven jihadi, a Canadian named Michael Zehaf-Bibeau who converted to Islam.

 

After murdering Cpl. Cirillo, he ran into the Canadian Parliament where he was eventually gunned down.

And for those who favor gun confiscation, members of Parliament said they owed their lives to Kevin Vickers, who fatally shot Zehaf-Bibeau just outside the caucus rooms where lawmakers were barricading themselves.

This is the second recent attack on Canada's soldiers by local Muslims. Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent. a 28-year veteran was struck and killed and a second soldier injured by a Canadian jihadi, Martin “Ahmad” Rouleau in Quebec who ran into them with his car just two days ago.

 

The Islamic State has called on Muslims to launch attacks in Western countries that have joined the U.S.-led coalition to combat them.

The stories of both Zehaf-Bibeau and Rouleau bear striking similarities. Both were converts to Islam and known to Canada's counter terrorism forces. Both were a product of radical Imams in Saudi-funded mosques and both had their passports revoked after it became known they had been in contact with ISIS, yet they were still allowed to roam free.

Canada, the U.S., and other countries are going to have to take a serious look at what they've been allowing to occur in their countries. These will not be the last attacks.

 

Canada's PM Stephen Harper, as usual, rose to the occasion. Speaking to the nation on television, he said simply that the attacks were an attempt to intimidate Canada. "Let there be no mistake", he said. "We will not be intimidated. Canada will never be intimidated."

Unfortunately, own President Barack Obama lacked that insight, referring to the attacks as 'senseless violence.'

There was nothing senseless about it. Terrorism doesn't come out of nowhere, nor is it mindless. It is a tactic designed to achieve certain goals, no more no less. Only someone willfully blind or deliberately dissembling would think otherwise.

I doubt PM Harper is in either of those two categories, and I think Canada's eyes have been opened.

There is one other small silver lining here. As Cpl. Cirillo lay dying, not only did his two comrades stand by him, but Margaret Lerhe, a nurse on her way to work at the Elizabeth Bruyere Hospital and Barbara Winters, a lawyer and a former member of the Canadian Forces Naval Reserve heard the gunshots and ran towards them instead of away from them and joined the two soldiers to work as a team in desperately trying to keep Cpl. Nathan Cirillo, who was still conscious alive.

Aside from trying to staunch the bleeding with compresses, they comforted him, telling him how proud they were of him, how brave he was and how loved.

In the end he died in their arms, but not before taking that final bit of comfort with him as he left this earth.

If a warrior has to die, could there be a better way to make the passage?

 

Obama Soils Himself At The UN With Weakness, Appeasement And Israel Bashing

 

President Barack Hussein Obama addressed the UN General Assembly today. Even by Obama standards, an admittedly low bar, it was a turgid speech that lacked even elementary common sense, and threw out gratuitous insults that undercut its supposed goals. But it's worth analyzing as a clear indicator of how this president thinks and what he's planning as commander-in-chief.

The president, of course, sees the Ebola outbreak, Russian aggression and Islamist terrorism as all problems that have been caused by America not giving enough money and resources to the UN, or in ObamaSpeak, "the failure of our international system to keep pace with an interconnected world."

Of course, the president also includes Israel in those problems, but more on that shortly.

As always, President Obama substituted verbiage for real action. He took a few minutes to bash Russia over the situation with Ukraine, explicitly comparing them with Nazi Germany.

Now, here's something to consider. This president is already having problems building an 'international coalition' that means anything more than a little logistical support and a handful of Arab nations making token contributions to the air strikes against Islamic State.

Remember too, that Putin understood a long time before President Obama that the Syrian opposition were mostly Islamist jihadis, and that it was Russia's Putin that approached Obama about crafting a diplomatic solution for Syria - only to be double crossed by the president when Putin found out Obama was covertly arming and training what became ISIS and had secretly moved 1,800 troops to the Syria/Jordan border.You'd think that perhaps one of his advisers might have mentioned that Russia is an important actor in the region, that any UN action of the kind the president was talking about would require Russia's assent, and that the Ukraine was perhaps best dealt with in an actual private interaction between the U.S. and Russia. But of course, no one can tell this president anything, except maybe Valerie Jarret. So out came the nasty and counterproductive rhetoric.

It reminds me of nothing so much as a weak, obnoxious ten-year-old on the playground shouting out schoolboy insults at other kids, knowing he's safe because Teacher Is Watching.

And by the way...is anyone considering that the president is making air strikes on Syria and arming Islamist 'rebels' who want to overthrow Basher Assad, something not too much different than he's accusing Russia of doing in Ukraine? Certainly the Russians will see it that way.And react accordingly.

The president went on to mention his pursuit of 'a diplomatic resolution to the Iranian nuclear issue', urging Iran to "take this historic opportunity." Considering how America has appeased the Iranian regime and allowed the Iranians to play for time as Iran ramps up its enrichment and weapons development, I'm sure the Iranians would agree that they are definitely taking this historic opportunity they're being offered. Just not the one the president's talking about.

 

After some blather about climate change, the president went on to use almost one third of his speech to talk about what a peaceful religion Islam is, and how The Islamic State (AKA ISIS) have nothing to do with Islam whatsoever. Oddly enough, at one point, after saying they have nothing to do with Islam, he referred to them as “religiously motivated fanatics” , even if they are universally Muslims, and even if their leader, al-Baghdadi has a doctorate in Islamic studies from Baghdad University!

In another part of the speech, he again retreated into Obama Fantasyland, talking about how he defeated al-Qaeda (he arguably strengthened it), is supporting a sovereign government in Iraq and chest thumped about how he "supported a transition to a sovereign Afghan government" as 'triumphs'.

He then went on to assure those “religiously motivated fanatics” that the U.S. isn't ever going to put boots on the ground or invade their countries. Taking ground troops off the table and tipping off our enemies in the region in advance about our weakness and lack of a working strategy is pretty bad, although it certainly appeases his Leftist base. But here's something else that seems to not square at all with what he calls his 'successes' in Iraq and Afghanistan. What passes for 'sovereign governments' in those countries was only achieved after an American military occupation. Yet he's already telling the world (and our enemies) he's not going to use the tool that achieved whatthe president calls his 'successes' in this latest conflict!

After which he of course says, standing before the most corrupt and wasteful institution in the world, that the real solution to dealing with those “religiously motivated fanatics” who have nothing to do with Islam is for the West to gift the UN a lot more money for development in an area that just happens to be exclusively Muslims, serially corrupt and governed by the Religion of Peace!

The most surreal part of the speech is where he talks about attacking all those “religiously motivated fanatics” who have nothing to do with Islam ideologically. Or, to quote this president directly, "That means cutting off the funding that fuels this hate. It’s time to end the hypocrisy of those who accumulate wealth through the global economy, and then siphon funds to those who teach children to tear it down."

Well! I'm certainly relieved to hear that America is going to pull all of its forces out of Qatar, cancel that $11 billion arms deal that the president just approved with them and introduce sanctions on sales of Qatari oil and gas as well as banking sanctions that won't allow any financial institution dealing with Qatar to be involved in any financial transaction with American banks, just as President Bush did with al-Qaeda.

And also, that America is going to cut off the funds from overseas that finance all of the Muslim Brotherhood linked jihadi mosques and madrassahs here in America.

Oh, wait..that's just the president running his mouth again! We aren't actually going to do anything concrete that really involves "cutting off the funding that fuels this hate."

But wait, there's more:

"All religions have been attacked by extremists from within at some point, and all people of faith have a responsibility to lift up the value at the heart of all religion: do unto thy neighbor as you would have done unto you."

"The ideology of ISIL or al Qaeda or Boko Haram will wilt and die if it is consistently exposed, confronted, and refuted in the light of day. Look at the new Forum for Promoting Peace in Muslim Societies – Sheikh bin Bayyah described its purpose: “We must declare war on war, so the outcome will be peace upon peace.”

Hmmmm...

Now as it happens, I'm not unfamiliar with the Qu'ran,and while I don't recall much at all about 'do unto thy neighbor as you would have done unto you' unless we're talking about how Muslims are supposed to treat fellow Muslims, there's all sorts of things in there about fighting the unbelievers, being harsh with them, making them pay outrageous taxes in exchange for the right to life and generally taking their rights away altogether..particularly if they're women. In fact, the Qu'ran says specifically not to take unbelievers as friends, (Qu'ran 5:51), calling them Muslim's 'inveterate foe' (4:101), that 'those who reject Islam serve the cause of evil'(4:76). In fact, according to all the hadiths, Mohammed himself shortly before his death enjoined all Muslims to fight the unbelievers until they died, became Muslims, or paid the jirzya (the heavy monetary tribute literally, protection money) willingly and 'felt themselves subdued.'

Now while a lot of Muslims reject this, there are also quite a few who see it as authentic Islam and it's more than just a few “religiously motivated fanatics.”

So our president is either willfully and knowingly lying, hideously ignorant, has a very different idea than most people about what constitutes terrorism and fanaticism that most of the rest of us, or perhaps all three.

That he sought to rationalize what's going on in Islam by saying "All religions have been attacked by extremists from within at some point" (news to Buddhists, Jews and many Christian denominations!) and cites Sheik Abdullah bin Bayyah as his example of a 'peaceful, moderate Muslim leader' who can aid the West in combating jihad.

Really?

Sheik bin Bayyah is the principal deputy to Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual leader who favors a second Holocaust against Jews performed by Muslims, genocide and ethnic cleansing in Israel, female circumcision and wife beating, and the establishment of the Caliphate under strict sharia law.

Sheik bin Bayyah works with Qaradawi as second in command of Qaradawi's International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS) which among other things strongly supports Hamas, an officially designated terrorist organization designated as such under American law. Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh and Turkey’s Islamist anti-semitic president Tayyip Erdogan are both members of IUMS.

The group is violently anti-Israel, and bin Bayyh himself issued a fatwa in 2004 calling the killing of U.S. troops in Iraq 'a duty for all Muslims.'

The president has perhaps forgotten(or more likely,shrugged off) that when most Islamists use the term 'peace' they mean something very different than we do. They means Dar Islam, the 'peace' that will come when Muslims rule the world and all of Dar Harb (literally 'the house of war' the part of the world ruled by non-Muslims) has been conquered and subdued.

The Sheik has never formally broken with Qaradawi or Hamas, but merely claims he left the IUMS 'about a year ago.'. And this hardcore Islamist is the example of 'moderate Islam' being pushed by the president. For that matter, even Qaradawi himself isn't exactly considered off limits when it comes to the Obama regime.

And oh yes, of course the president had something to say about Israel. According to the president, too many Israelis are "ready to abandon the hard work of peace" after having to live for years of being attacked, of genocidal terrorism and with having their very legitimacy as a nation with a right to defend themselves essentially ignored by most of the UN.

And that's Israel fault, or as President Obama said, departing from his printed remarks made available to reporters beforehand, "And that’s something worthy of reflection within Israel."

It's not something Hamas, Hezbollah and the Palestinian Authority ought to think about, you see...just those pesky Israelis. It's their fault. After that, the president went back to the script:

"But let’s be clear: the status quo in the West Bank and Gaza is not sustainable. We cannot afford to turn away from this effort – not when rockets are fired at innocent Israelis, or the lives of so many Palestinian children are taken from us in Gaza. So long as I am President, we will stand up for the principle that Israelis, Palestinians, the region, and the world will be more just with two states living side by side, in peace and security."

Rockets have been being fired at Israelis all throughout the Obama presidency. Has he ever done anything about it? Nope. In fact, he's been funding Hamas through USAid and through the Palestinian Authority for quite some time.

Notice too how our Dear Leader equates Hamas's terrorist aggression with Israel defending itself. And of course, it's Israel that are the child killers..forget about Hamas using children for human shields or using schools, mosques, hospitals and UN facilities as rocket and mortar launching sites for their military.

Abbas and the PLO are allied with the genocidal Hamas and the Palestinian Authority is making no attempt whatsoever to disassociate themselves from Hamas - the reverse in fact. Yet President Obama has the unmitigated gall to tell Israel that they had better make even more concessions and work a lot harder at making peace with people who have sworn to kill them.

I doubt it's a coincidence that the president made this speech in front of the UN when he knew very well that Israeli PM Benyamin Netanyahu is en route to address the UN in a day or so. It's the same thing he did the last time Netanyahu came to America, a blatant attempt to poison the water and undercut him.

Then again, think about this. If you were actually trying to work on a peaceful solution to the conflict between Israel and the Arabs whom identify themselves as Palestinians, would you signal your bias in this fashion? Would you signal a country that is supposedly your ally that you can't be trusted and reveal the same thing to its enemies?

In this speech to the UN, President Barack Hussein Obama gives us a classic rundown on why he is such an abysmal failure; his refusal to recognize reality, his ability to continue to lie to himself as well as to others, his weakness, his duplicity, his inability to admit mistakes or ever take responsibility for anything, his blatant hypocrisy and most of all his low moral character.

Such men can destroy if they attain power, but in the end they can build nothing at all.

This speech tells us why President Obama's place in history is assured. That at least is certain.

What Critics Of Obama's ISIS Plan Are Missing

 

President Obama's plans to deal with the Islamic State have garnered a huge amount of criticism. Relying on haphazard airstrikes and al-Qaeda and Islamist Syrian rebels and the dysfunctional Iraqi Army for boots on the ground is not a recipe for success, and either is essential acting as Iran and Hezbollah's air force.

Even the New York Times, among other sources has reported on the president's refusal to listen to his military advisers, and former Marine commandant General James Conway and former CENTCOM Commander General James “Mad Dog” Mattis,both retired as part of the president's military purge on experienced generals he considers politically unfriendly have weighed in.

 

The highly decorated and capable Mattis told the House Intelligence Committee, “You just don’t take anything off the table up front, which it appears the administration has tried to do. Specifically, if this threat to our nation is determined to be as significant as I believe it is, we may not wish to reassure our enemies our enemies in advance that they will not see American ‘boots on the ground.’ If a brigade of our paratroopers or a battalion landing team of our Marines would strengthen our allies at a key juncture and create havoc/humiliation for our adversaries, then we should do what is necessary with our forces that exist for that very purpose.”

 

General Conway was even more outspoken, saying, “I don’t think the president’s plan has a snowball’s chance in hell of succeeding.”

A number of the military and ex-military who are regular visitors to these pages were even more explicit, and as you know I had some fairly pungent critiques of President Obama's non-strategy here, here and here.

So it's important at this point to remember something I brought up right after the president's dismal speech. This isn't about actually destroying The Islamic State.It's about appeasing his far Left base while still trying to appear  like he's actually doing something to the American people to try and rescue his awful poll numbers before the midterms.

You see, President Obama's strategy doesn't have to make military sense or even common sense as long as it makes political sense.That's where his priorities lie. That, and kicking the can down the road for the next president to deal with, so he can get back to his usual routine.

Kerry: US Must Help Push 'Real Islam'

No, I'm not kidding...John Kerry's 'strategy' for defeating the Islamic State involves proselytizing to push what he and his pals at the White House consider 'real Islam.'

As I'm sure you know,both Kerry and President Obama have said that they don't 'consider ISIS Islamic.'


Here's our Secretary of State at a roundtable discussion in Paris, still trying to build that so far illusory coalition:

" What this effort has to do is literally dry up the money, dry up the foreign fighters, prevent the foreign fighters from going home back to various places to do harm. It has to start major efforts to delegitimize ISIS’s claim to some religious foundation for what it’s doing and begin to put real Islam out there and draw lines throughout the region.

And I think this is a wake-up call with respect to that because every Arab leader there today was talking about this, about real Islam and how important the Friday sermons are and where they need to go. Those are critical components of this strategy. Getting logistics, airlift, putting humanitarian assistance in, flying it in, ammunition, equipment, training, advisers – all of these roles are the totality and you have to be able to describe this in a logistic way – in a holistic way."

The 'real Islam?' I wonder if John Kerry has actually read the Qu'ran and seen what's in there?

There's nothing the Islamic State is doing that isn't justified by a fairly straight forward reading of the Qu'ran and the Hadiths, the Muslim equivalent of the Gospels where Mohammed's life, deeds and sayings are recounted by his closest followers.Not all Muslims would agree with that reading, but there are a significant number that would. And a lot of them have no problem with the Islamic State.

Believe it or not, Left wing Icon Bill Maher addressed this fairly well talking to PBS's clueless Charlie Rose:



Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State has a doctorate in Islamic studies from Baghdad University, one of the historic centers of Islamic learning and thought. He's formulated the Islamic State's ideology on what he and a lot of other people consider a legitimate reading of Islam.Do Kerry and Obama claim they understand what 'real Islam' is better than him?

For that matter, where do Kerry and President Obama get off talking about 'real Islam' when they support and fund a unity government that includes Hamas, whose beliefs are essentially the same as Islamic State's?

Kerry's State Department spokesmouth Maria Harf emphasized that just the other day, when she was asked about it.. “They’re different groups…They have different goals and different capabilities and different aims…

Needless to say, when she was asked what those differences might be, she simply responded, “I’m not going to get into the business of ranking terrorist organizations.”

When you have a President who's on record saying that "I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear" , you run into troublesome dichotomies like that.Some terrorists are OK, others are sort of borderline and some are..well, just not Islamic.Can't tell who the players are without a scorecard.

I have to admit, I'm curious what Kerry and Obama have in mind to push this 'real Islam.' Dawa classes at your local public schools? Having U.S. and Eu taxpayers subsidize Wahhabi mosques at home and abroad? Free sets of flashcards, 'This Is Islam, This Ain't?'

Pathetic. And needless to say, outright useless because of its fundamental dishonesty.

Guess Who Else Just Refused To Help Obama Fight ISIS?

 

This is getting embarrassing.

The Obama Administration sent out a request to - wait for it - Iran for help in fighting ISIS through the Iraqi ambassador.

And Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei's reply?

 

No, no way, not interested in the least.

That actually surprised me at first, since at first glance the U.S. taking out ISIS would appear to aid Iran in their own ambition...putting together a nuclear armed Shi'ite bloc including Iraq, Syria. Lebanon and Iran. But Khamenei is obviously weighing the president's non-strategy and probable failure against cooperating with the Great Satan and decided it was better to bow out. I can understand that, from Khamenei's viewpoint.

The Iranians can now simply sit back, eat popcorn and enjoy the show, (and incidentally, keep the centrifuges running on their rogue nuclear weapons program)while the U.S. spends its time, blood and treasure.

As I pointed out, President Obama has no coalition at this point. The only country who has agreed to come in with any concrete and useful help are our dear friends in Oz, who always seem to be willing to stand by our side no matter what, G-d bless 'em. PM Tony Abbot has stated that Australia will send 600 advisers of their own to help fight ISIS.

Given this president's no win plan, I'm not sure how wise this is, but it's an absolutely wonderful gesture. And as anyone who served with them in 'Nam, AfPak or Iraq knows, the Diggers are superb fighting men who punch far above their weight in numbers. They will cause some serious mayhem among the jihadis.

But so far, that's pretty much it.

Some 'coalition!'

Obama's Loose Lips Sink Ships - And Kill Potential Allies

 

My friend Commander Jennifer D. Dyer (ret) has a great piece on the Obama Administration's non-strategy that will definitely reward your attention. Among other things, it details exactly how the president's preferred strategy collapsed between his turgid speech  last Wednesday and today..because ISIS was listening and took action..emphasis mine:

ISIS is busy neutralizing the Syrian factions that might make common cause with the United States.  On Thursday, Breitbart London reported that several dozen leaders of Syrian rebel factions opposed to ISIS, who were gathered at a meeting in northwestern Syria, were killed in a massive explosion on Wednesday.

Huffington Post on Friday evening summarized reports that ISIS has signed a non-aggression deal with a separate group of rebel factions in Syria, nominally so that all of the factions can continue to fight the Assad regime.

According to the Dubai-based Arabic news site Orient News, one of the signatories to the agreement is the Syrian Revolutionary Front (SRF), a group that has received U.S. support and has been touted as a likely partner for a U.S. strategy to oppose ISIS in Syria.

The SRF has been losing ground in recent weeks, suffering a major blow when one of its top commanders was killed at the end of August.  At the same time, the SRF was reported to be fighting alongside al-Qaeda-affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra in southern Syria, including the battle for the crossing point with Israel in the Golan over which the rebel factions claimed control on 27 August.

Now it appears that the non-aggression pact with ISIS was brokered by Jabhat al-Nusra.(ed note: an ISIS ally)  None of this comes as a surprise to those who’ve been following along with Patrick Poole at PJ Media.  On 3 September, Poole outlined the continuing cooperation of factions in the Free Syrian Army with ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra – cooperation that has resulted in a flow of U.S.-supplied weaponry to the latter two armies.  On 9 September, he expounded on a report from the Los Angeles Times that one of the “vetted moderate” groups, Harakat Hazm, is quite open about fighting alongside Jabhat al-Nusra.

The U.S. has already given this group anti-tank missiles.  Appended to Poole’s analysis is the tweeted text of an alliance agreement concluded by “vetted moderate” faction Harakat Hazm and other similar groups with Jabhat al-Nusra.  The text was tweeted on 8 July.

It’s not just credible, it’s highly bloody likely that some of the rebel factions – including U.S. client SRF – have indeed made a pact with ISIS.  The fact that it won’t be worth a bucket of warm spit ought to serve not as an encouragement to U.S. delusions of a meaningful alliance in Syria, but as a warning.[....]

In fact, ISIS hasn’t sat still.  Once Obama made his speech on Wednesday, the option of mounting coordinated attacks on ISIS’s strategic rear in Syria immediately became a major threat posed by the U.S.  If we could do it effectively, we could force ISIS to defend its rear: shift resources away from the campaign in Iraq, and perhaps even rework its overall strategy.

So ISIS promptly took out nearly 50 opposition rebel leaders and signed its non-aggression agreement with America’s potential partners in Syria.

Remember that ISIS doesn’t have to show good faith over time with any of those Syrian factions.  It just has to preempt their cooperation with the United States.  The mechanism for that is straightforward.  We’re an easy read – ponderous making decisions, easily spooked, committed to at least perfunctory public transparency – and our president is a slow learner.

If ISIS can prevent anyone in Syria from cooperating with the U.S., ISIS can concentrate its effort in Iraq, where our forces on the ground will be: small, scattered, un-concentrated, embedded with local groups which may not all be fighting for the same objectives.  Remember this also: Obama is determined not to overlay an obtrusively coherent U.S. framework on this operation.  Kurds fighting in northern Iraq and Sunnis fighting along the Euphrates in Anbar – each with a separate ill-defined connection to the struggling Shia-majority government in Baghdad – will have the lead.

Even in Vietnam and Somalia, I don’t think we’ve ever backed into anything with our hindquarters flapping quite so egregiously in the breeze.  Military success doesn’t just happen.  It’s as much a matter of political will, and a coherent strategy and operational plan, as it is of training, expertise, and weapons superiority at the tactical level.  Assuming we do go ahead with the plan-deficient, few-boots non-war the Obama administration has been proclaiming for the last 72 hours, I am very concerned that American troops could find themselves vulnerable under fire and fighting for their lives within weeks.

I would actually feel better at this point if we weren’t enlarging our footprint in Irbil at all, but instead planned to just keeping flying strike-fighters from Kuwait and Qatar.  There are sound operational reasons to be gravely concerned about Obama’s decision to dismiss the advice of his military leaders and go with a toxic brew of half-measure objectives and exposed deployment situations.

The rapid, cynical, homicidal initiative shown by ISIS in seeking to neutralize Obama’s Syria option is a pretty good indicator of what we’ll be up against.  Pundits and officials who are vocally criticizing the president are not just showing partisan sour grapes.  This is real, and it’s bad.

Commander Dyer also  makes the point that the troops we do have in the region are going to be in very small concentrations, particularly in the vulnerable Kurdish capitol of Erbil. We going to be basing both troops and fighter planes there because, as I reported before,  our Turkish  'ally' won't let us use bases in their country to attack ISIS, even ones we pay a handsome fee to lease, most notably Incirlik, a mere 100 miles from the front. So much for all that appeasement .



 
Moreover, as Commander Dyer points out,  putting together an airbase in Erbil, this close to the front with ISIS makes the planes vulnerable to any heat seeking missiles, of which ISIS has plenty.It's one thing once they're up in the air, but very different when it comes to landing and takeoff.

The bottom line, of course, is is that there is no real strategy, except a political one. President Obama isn't trying to destroy ISIS, he merely wants to rescue his poll numbers by launching a few airstrikes and giving the appearance of doing something so he can kick the can down the road for his successor.

 

Of course having opened his mouth in prime time on national television, the president has pretty much destroyed any chance of  real cooperation with any Syrian  opposition. The ones whom ISIS thought might be a problem are dead, and the others are neutralized, especially after they saw what happened to the others.

Read the rest of Commander Dyer's piece here..

BREAKING: Obama's 'Coalition Of Partners' On ISIS Chrashes And Burns

 


President Obama's ridiculous speech last night on combating the Islamic State had these main components - making sure to mention that Islamic State was neither a state or Islamic, airstrikes on Iraq and Syria, reassuring his Leftist base that no U.S. ground troops would be participating, and this:

This is our strategy. And in each of these four parts of our strategy, America will be joined by a broad coalition of partners.

Apparently President Obama opened his mouth before actually taking roll call on those 'allies.'

 

The Brits, supposedly our closest strategic ally have already said they won't do any airstrikes in Iraq and have expanded that 'no thanks': to include Syria:

Britain’s foreign secretary says his country won’t participate in airstrikes on Syria, following an announcement from Washington that it would begin hitting targets inside the country.

Speaking Thursday after talks with his German counterpart Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Philip Hammond said Britain won’t be “revisiting” the issue after Parliament decided last year against participating in airstrikes.

And apparently Steinmeier's presence was no accident. The Germans opted out too.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told a news conference in Berlin that Germany has not been asked to take part in the air strikes and would not be participating. “To quite clear, we have not been asked to do so and neither will we do so,” Steinmeier said.

Even more importantly, President Barack Obama's dear Islamist friend Turkey not only said it will not participate, but won't even let American forces use bases we lease in Turkey to attack The Islamic State:

Turkey will refuse to allow a US-led coalition to attack jihadists in neighbouring Iraq and Syria from its air bases, nor will it take part in combat operations against militants, a government official told AFP Thursday.

"Turkey will not be involved in any armed operation but will entirely concentrate on humanitarian operations," the official said on condition of anonymity.

Turkey's non-participation is key, because it borders both Iraq and Syria and has a reasonably strong, U.S. equipped military.

The Turks are refusing to get involved because when Mosul fell to The Islamic State, so did the Turkish Consulate and 49 hostages...and also because they don't want to encourage the Kurds because of their own suppressed Kurdinh minority in Turkey. And because they have backed The Islamic State from the start against Assad. You'd think someone might have whispered this  in the ear of our prevaricator-in-chief before he asked them to join up.

So who's left? The French? Possible, in a very limited way, but doubtful...remember all those French Muslim voters and the upcoming elections.Hollande and the socialists will need every vote they can get.

New Europe? The Poles, Baltic States, Georgia and Ukraine all contributed to Iraq and Afghanistan, but after the way the Obama Administration has treated them and what with Putin on the prowl, faggeddabbouddit.

There's the Sunni Arab states, and Secretary of State Kerry is headed there as I write this. The Saudis and the GCC may help,but again in a limited way and certainly not with boots on the ground. Aside from the fact that one of them Qatar is actually funding the Islamic State and has been for some time, there's also the problem of Iran, the president's new friend. The Saudis and the Emirates are smart enough to know even if Obama and Kerry aren't that if ISIS is taken off the board, there's no obstacle to Iran achieving its long time goal of a Shi'ite nuclear armed bloc.

They've long since stop trusting Obama's assurances on the matter. It remains to be seen what Kerry can promise them to get them fully involved. Certainly it won't be with boots on the ground.

The same applies to the Egyptians who are not exactly Obama fans at this point and have their own jihadis to deal with at home and next door in Libya thanks to this president. They won't be fighting in Iraq and Syria in any large way, and anything they do it will be for a steep price demanded of Obama.

That leaves Iran, Iran's Shi'ite militias, Hezbollah, the Iraqi army none of whom have been able to stop Islamic State's fighters thus far. And the Kurds, who don't trust Obama and will concentrate on defending their own territory. Oh, and about1,700 US 'advisers' (the president glossed over those in his speech) who are basically in the same position our advisers in Vietnam were circa 1962. 

Islamic State isn't going to be defeated by air strikes, and those are the boots on the ground. And is the U.S. going to act as the Shi'ite air force now, taking sides in the sectarian conflict in the region? I do seem to remember a certain freshman senator from Illinois and his Democrat buddies criticizing President Bush for getting us involved in a sectarian civil war in Iraq,don't you?

 I hope I'm wrong, but just watch as he sends more 'advisers' in to cover his chest thumping rhetoric.

President Obama has no real strategy, except to make it look like he's doing something and improve his terrible poll numbers before the election to try and hold the senate. As always, everything is about politics with this president - not the country.

 

UPDATE: It appears that just as I predicted, the Arab Countries are not entirely on board either. Can it be they too no longer trust this president? I guess when you lie to people habitually...

Whoopsie.

Some 'coalition'.