Get PJ Media on your Apple

Ordered Liberty

The Clinical Definition of ‘Insanity’ …

May 1st, 2013 - 2:51 pm

President Obama made a number of ill-conceived remarks in his press conference Tuesday, but the topper was the one reported by the New York Times regarding the performance of federal investigators in the aftermath of a 2011 warning from Russian intelligence that Tamerlan Tsarnaev — one of the eventual Boston Marathon bombers — was an Islamic radical:

Mr. Obama said that after the Russian warning, federal agents “had not only investigated the older brother; they interviewed the older brother. They concluded that there were no signs that he was engaging in extremist activity.”

Translation: There is to be no change in our approach — we refuse to acknowledge the causative nexus between Islamic supremacism and the terrorism committed by Muslims. Yes, the agents confirmed that Tsarnaev had adopted the aggressor ideology, but he had not — yet — moved on to aggressive activity. Until activity happens, we take no note of someone’s beliefs … unless they are right-wingers, Second Amendment defenders, or pro-life advocates.

You cannot combat an ideologically driven threat absent an understanding of the ideology and acknowledgment of its catalyzing effects. But President Obama says, no, the FBI shouldn’t take any action until agents have proof that someone is engaging in violent acts – or at least conspiring to do so (since the president favors approaching jihadist terror as a crime, rather than a war, I assume his understanding of “activity” includes conspiracy). This takes us back to September 10th America.

The Bush administration was no stranger to political correctness when it came to Islam, but President Bush and Vice President Cheney were nonetheless steadfast — heroically so, I think — in their determination that jihadist terror was a national defense challenge, not a crime-wave; that the priority had to be pro-active prevention of attacks, not reactive post-attack prosecution; and that this meant the top imperative was gathering intelligence to thwart those who might be inclined to become violent, even if that inevitably meant Leftists and Islamic supremacists would smear the government as “at war with Islam.”

The Obama administration, in stark contrast, is even more determined than was the Clinton administration to frame jihadist terror — oops, I mean violent extremism (wouldn’t want to refer to what causes the violent extremism) — as a crime problem to be managed by post facto indictments.

Imagine if, at the press conference, President Obama just came right out and told us:

Look, I understand that the attacks against us are committed by radical Muslims adherent to a supremacist interpretation of Islam, and therefore that encouraging agents to track Islamic supremacists would help prevent terrorist attacks. But agents could abuse that authority, while progressive journalists and Muslim activists would claim that we are at war with Islam. Weighing these matters, I have decided that terrorist attacks, as much as we condemn them, are the price we must pay to prevent the greater evils of occasional excesses from our investigators and a stream of slanders from my base.

Americans would massively disagree with him, but at least it would be honest.

(Thumbnail on PJM homepage assembled from multiple images.)

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
According to the FBI's own list, below are the most wanted terrorists.

This is going to require an intense level of investigative insight, a tremendous amount of deep deductive reasoning and a near genius level of critical thinking. But, I believe that at least some of the PJ Media family can help.

See if you, a lay person...not trained in advanced arts of detective work, nor at all "elite, progressive, liberal or nuanced" enough to be hardcore leftists...can spot ANY clue that might tie the persons on this list together in some way.

Again, the FBI already KNOWS about them and has formulated this list to acknowledge that they are at the TOP of the threat chart.

(Pictures are available at the link)

Please feel free to guess wildly and be creative in your meager attempts to find a tie that binds.

FBI Most Wanted Terrorists































1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"...even if that inevitably meant Leftists and Islamic supremacists would smear the government as “at war with Islam.”"

Dar-al-Islam IS at war with Dar-al-Harb. When are McCarthy and other conservative writers, politicians, etc. going to wise up and stop being part of the problem? The Turkish priminister spelled it out for you when he said "There is no moderate Islam, there is no radical Islam, there is only Islam."

Islamic doctine is to conquer the world, force others to convert, and enslave the "People of the Book" who are unwilling to convert. If you want an example of what that means look at the Coptic Christians in Egypt.

That "nice Muslim family" down the street is probably not plotting to harm you and your kids, this is true, however they are probably giving money to the mosque which then sends it on to terrorist organizations. There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim. Not by our difinition nor by theirs, it is a myth and a useful deception for Islam. A true "moderate" Muslim would be like a C & E Catholic, however this person would be considered an apostate by other Muslims and be under a death sentance.

We need more people educated about Islam, to understand that the peaceful stuff in the beginning of the Koran is superceeded by the later passages. That Mohammed is the "Perfect Muslim" and what the exact example he set is. People also need to understand the concept of Taqiyya and how it relates to organizations like CAIR. We also need to understand what dhimmitude is and how this relates to our political leadership who are cozy with Muslim organizations.

We need to wake up and start acting like we are at war, because admit it or not we are, and at this point it looks like we're losing.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Bush was not heroic in his efforts. He was the one who declared Islam to be a religion of peace. Load of BS.

You say Obama would be being honest with such a statement as you wrote? Nonsense. He is every bit as hostile to America as the jihadis. Just look at his handling of the Gulf oil spill. He blocked every effort to contain it at every turn. His administration approved BP, even though they had a terrible safety record and no proper emergency plan. The spill was entirely predictable.

And don't forget, Obama's childhood was spent in a Muslim madrass and his Father was a Muslim, too. We told you it mattered, and people just pooh-poohed the idea. Obama likes Islam, and he hates America. Why do you think those guys got Mirandized so quickly? He was helping them!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (70)
All Comments   (70)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
The purpose of Newspeak: To make all other modes of thought impossible.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Honesty is one thing we will never see from these pathological liars.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The Imams and mullahs have the power to declare unconditional peace with the rest of the world and end the carnage of jihad. They have steadfastly refused to do that for the past 1,000 years. Why? Because "the book" tells them otherwise and even the silent ones cheer for Islam's "victories." Islam needs a "reformation" in the worst way, but it will never happen.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Reformation? In order to have a peaceful Islam that can coexist (and you're a moron if you have one of those on your car) is to reject Mohammed as the example of the perfect Muslim and the Hadith, toss out a good deal of the Koran. So if you do that is it still Islam?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I have one; it says Coexist with the logos of various gun manufacturers.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
There is a necessary, but probably not sufficient, condition for peace between the Dar al-Harb and the Dar al-Islam.

The condition? A glass-lined hole in the ground in the Arabian desert. I won't, and probably don't need to, say where.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
A continuous stream of your dead bodies is the price to pay for Multicultural Diversity Cultural Enrichment.

Suck it up European Christians, you racist xenophobic oppressors. Chickens coming home to roost. Enjoy!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
treating the islamists as common criminals will work real well now that they have egypt, lybia, and very soon syria with their armies and air forces
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Islam brings hope and comfort to millions of people in my country, and to more than a billion people worldwide. Ramadan is also an occasion to remember that Islam gave birth to a rich civilization of learning that has benefited mankind. Islam is a faith that brings comfort to people. It inspires them to lead lives based on honesty, and justice, and compassion. Islam is a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. It's a faith that has made brothers and sisters of every race. It's a faith based upon love, not hate. Mohammad's word has guided billions of believers across the centuries, and those believers built a culture of learning and literature and science. All the world continues to benefit from this faith and its achievements. The Islam that we know is a faith devoted to the worship of one God, as revealed through The Holy Qur'an. It teaches the value and the importance of charity, mercy, and peace.

- George W. Bush !!!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Ramadan is also an occasion to remember that Islam gave birth to a rich civilization of learning that has benefited mankind."

Incorrect. Many of the things accredited to Islamic Culture are the work of recently conquered and converted people who had yet to be fully Islamacized.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Every word of this is a lie. Islam was, is and will continue to be a serial murderer of entire peoples and cultures. It is an abomination worthy only of extinction. The history of Islam's practitioners speaks for itself. Islam, by the very nature of its own doctrine, history and by the actions of its followers has shown itself to be the existential enemy of Western civilization.

Let us also dispense with the idea that Islam is a religion. Islam is not so much a religion as it is a supremacist, totalitarian political ideology, a destructive and murderous meme impervious to moderation or change, and with a narrowly circumscribed set of rituals that define every aspect of its followers’ lives. As for 'tolerance', here's a quote from the Muslim Brotherhood and their mission in the U.S, calling for...

"...a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions."

Speaking to the “Islam is a religion of peace," assertion that we hear from Muslims and ignorant (yes, ignorant) Westerners, when Muslims assert that Islam is a “religion of peace” they are not engaging in al taqqiya, they are actually making an assertion in good faith.

The problem lies in the fact that Islam has, from the Western point of view, a defective concept of peace. In semitic languages like Arabic, the consonants are the “root” of the word: islam = submission, and salam = peace have the same root, slm. The only concept of peace in Islamic jurisprudence is the peace between the conqueror and the conquered, between master and slave. There is no concept of a negotiated peace between nations in Islamic law (note that law is the defining property of Islam—their clerics are jurists, schools of Qu’ranic interpretation are called fiqh, a legalistic term)—Muslims may negotiate a “hudna” or armistice of limited duration with non-Muslim, but not a definitive enduring peace.

In that regard, Islam was, is and will continue to be a serial murderer of entire cultures and peoples. This is precisely what Islam has done throughout its entire 1400 year history. This is what Islam’s adherents have done whenever they have finally gotten the upper hand in whatever culture they have infiltrated. This is what has been inextricably interwoven into the DNA of its operating system. Those whom Islam does not destroy, it enslaves, diminishes and impoverishes. Islam strives for the conversion, enslavement or death of all who do not conform to its cruel and sadistic vision of Mankind. Advocates of Islamic ‘reform’ are sadly mistaken and deluded. Islam cannot be ‘reformed’ in the light of our Western values of humanity and freedom. Were that so, it would no longer be Islam. For its psychopathic and brutal misogyny alone, Islam is an abomination and worthy only of extinction.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Islam gave birth to a rich civilization of learning that has benefited mankind."

Sure. And that ended 600 years ago - at least. And most of it was stolen from other cultures, anyway. Arabic numerals? Hindu India. Astronomy? Greece and Mesopotamia. Poetry? Greece.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Even that much is now called into question, as witness Emmet Scott's recent "Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited: The History of a Controversy." From the Amazon review:

"During the 1920s Belgian historian Henri Pirenne came to an astonishing conclusion: the ancient classical civilization, which Rome had established throughout Europe and the Mediterranean world, was not destroyed by the Barbarians who invaded the western provinces in the fifth century, it was destroyed by the Arabs, whose conquest of the Middle East and North Africa terminated Roman civilization in those regions and cut off Europe from any further trading and cultural contact with the East. According to Pirenne, it was only in the mid-seventh century that the characteristic features of classical life disappeared from Europe, after which time the continent began to develop its own distinctive and somewhat primitive medieval culture."

"Pirenne’s findings, published posthumously in his Mohammed et Charlemagne (1937), were even then highly controversial, for by the late nineteenth century many historians were moving towards a quite different conclusion: namely that the Arabs were actually a civilizing force who rekindled the light of classical learning in Europe after it had been extinguished by the Goths, Vandals and Huns in the fifth century. And because Pirenne went so diametrically against the grain of this thinking, the reception of his new thesis tended to be hostile. Paper after paper published during the 1940s and ‘50s strove to refute him. The most definitive rebuttal however appeared in the early 1980s. This was Mohammed, Charlemagne and the Origins of Europe, by English archaeologists Richard Hodges and David Whitehouse. These, in common with Pirenne’s earlier critics, argued that classical civilization was already dead in Europe by the time of the Arab conquests, and that the Arabs arrived on the scene as civilizers rather than destroyers. Hodges and Whitehouse claimed that the latest findings of archaeology fully supported this view, and their work was highly influential. So influential indeed that over the next three decades Pirenne and his thesis was progressively sidelined, so that recent years have seen the publication of dozens of titles in the English language alone which fail even to mention his name."

"In Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited historian Emmet Scott reviews the evidence put forward by Hodges and Whitehouse, as well as the more recent findings of archaeology, and comes to a rather different conclusion. For him, the evidence shows that classical civilization was not dead in Europe at the start of the seventh century, but was actually experiencing something of a revival. Populations and towns were beginning to grow again for the first time since this second century – a development apparently attributable largely to the spread of Christianity. In addition, the real centres of classical civilization, in the Middle East, were experiencing an unprecedented Golden Age at the time, with cities larger and more prosperous than ever before. Excavation has shown that these were destroyed thoroughly and completely by the Arab conquests, with many never again reoccupied. And it was precisely then, says Scott, that Europe’s classical culture also disappeared, with the abandonment of the undefended lowland villas and farms of the Roman period and a retreat to fortified hilltop settlements; the first medieval castles."

"For Scott, archaeology demonstrated that the Arabs did indeed blockade the Mediterranean through piracy and slave-raiding, precisely as Pirenne had claimed, and he argues that the disappearance of papyrus from Europe was an infallible proof of this. Whatever classical learning survived after this time, says Scott, was due almost entirely to the efforts of Christian monks."

"The Pirenne thesis has taken on a new significance in the post 9/11 world. Scott’s take on the theory will certainly ignite further and perhaps heated debate."
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Bought this on your recommendation. Like it so far. I long ago came to the conclusion that most of what we know about Western Civilization is wrong. A toxic brew of the Roman Catholic tradition trying to minimize the Eastern Orthodox tradition, a view carried forward by Protestants and enshrined by Gibbon, and then the generally anti-European, especially anti-European exceptionalism, that has infested elite opinion since about the time of the French Revolution has warped everything "we" think we know about the Greco-Roman tradition, the Byzantine world, and the true origins of the Renaisance and the Enlightenment. By the last half of the 19th Century since everything about Christian Europe and its progeny/inheritors in England and the New World was bad, any good must have come from somewhere else. Hence, the myth that the Muslims somehow "preserved" civilization and taught all their learning to we inheritors of barbarism. The reality is that the Muslims destroyed civilization and could only maintain the opulent infrastructure of the Byzantines so long as there were refugees/slaves/dhimmis/forced converts around to maintain it. When the Italian city states became powerful enough to trade in the Mediterranean, Greco-Roman civilization began to be re-introduced to the former Western Empire. Anyway, that's my view in a nutshell.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"But President Obama says, no, the FBI shouldn’t take any action until agents have proof that someone is engaging in violent acts – or at least conspiring to do so (since the president favors approaching jihadist terror as a crime, rather than a war..."

So do we just throw away the constitution and statutory law? Do we throw away international laws of war, UN and Congressional authorizations? How do you identify a jihadist terrorist walking down the streets of America and living in our neighborhoods? Color of skin? Speaks another language besides english? Ask them if they're of Muslim faith?

The AUMF cited that the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Until such time as the U.S. declares the CONUS as a battlefield and under the authority of the military, our constitution and domestic statutory laws prevail. Likewise, the AUMF is pretty precise in defining who the declared enemy is to be -- those nations, organizations, or persons he determines ***planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,*** or harbored such organizations or persons..... (That means al Qaeda and the Talliban)
How can people, not have some legal grasp of the AUMF, the UN and Geneva Conventions war authorities and their distinctions from the applications of the constitution and domestic statutory law authorities? Radicalism that circumvents the constitution and our rules of statuory law is equal in every sense to those radicals who circumvent our peace, our laws and soverignty.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I don't believe that any understanding of a hostile philosophy or religion is necessary. Say, when was the last time you drove past an Albigensian church? Does your local TV station play "The Cathar Hour" on Sunday morning? No, because none of these people survive today. No intellectual argument; you just kill everybody who believes in the doctrine and it is gone, like magic. A French army had just breached the walls of an Albigensian-held city. A captain asks a bishop: "How will we know the Christians from the heretics?" Bishop: "Kill them all; God will know His own." Tough love, baby!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 Next View All