Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

Pro-Palestinian Rioters Corner Jews in Paris Synagogues

Sunday, July 13th, 2014 - by Susan L.M. Goldberg

YouTube Preview Image

The Times of Israel reports:

Several thousand demonstrators walked calmly through the streets of Paris behind a large banner that read “Total Support for the Struggle of the Palestinian People”.

But clashes erupted at the end of the march on Bastille Square, with people throwing projectiles onto a cordon of police who responded with tear gas. The unrest was continuing early Sunday evening.

Media reports said that hundreds of Jews were trapped inside a synagogue in the area and police units were sent to rescue them.

A person in the synagogue told Israel’s Channel 2 news that protesters hurled stones and bricks at the building, “like it was an intifada.”

The event comes after a firebomb was hurled at a synagogue in the suburbs of Paris this past Friday night. Despite it being Shabbat, there were no injuries and only minor damage occurred. 

On July 8, the day Israel launched Operation Protective Edge, a teenage girl in Paris was physically assaulted by a man with a “Middle Eastern appearance” who pepper sprayed her while shouting, “Dirty Jewess, inshallah you will die.”

France, home to one of the largest Jewish populations in Europe, is second only to Russia in terms of Jewish immigration to Israel. According to Israeli politician and former Soviet political prisoner Natan Sharansky, “Something historic is happening. It may be the beginning of the end of European Jewry.”

According to Israel’s Channel 2 news, Anne Hidalgo, the mayor of Paris, has confirmed that anti-Israel rioters attempted to enter two synagogues in central Paris. The rioters were stopped by French police.

Instagram user Jean-Baptiste Soufron posted a video from the Synagogue de la Roquette where pro-Palestinian activists were in the midst of a standoff with French police. One French Instagram user commented, “A shame for France ….far from the land of my childhood.” Another wrote, “The French media are responsible for inciting strong hatred and misinformation.”

Read bullet | 31 Comments »

Americans Also Targets in Hamas Attacks

Sunday, July 13th, 2014 - by Susan L.M. Goldberg

YouTube Preview Image

The above news clip represents what the average American hears on a daily basis regarding Operation Protective Edge, the latest military spate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that has been going on (officially) since 1948. In the span of the 2 minute report, the Palestinian civilian casualties in Gaza were mentioned 3 times. What was not mentioned: These civilians have been instructed by their Hamas government to ignore the flyers and phone calls from the Israeli Defense Forces warning citizens to get out of the way of impending rocket attacks in their areas.

While an Israeli mother putting her baby to sleep in a bomb shelter is included in the report, what the reporter didn’t bother to tell you are the number of Israelis currently being hospitalized for shock. Nor did the report include the fact that this is just another day for the residents of Sderot, who’ve received a constant barrage of rockets since Israel relinquished Gaza back to the Palestinians in 2005. That’s nearly a decade of rocket fire, making the generation who grew up under these attacks old enough to train incoming school students in how not to suffer the inevitable PTSD associated with a lifetime of death threats flying through the air and landing in your back yard.

American audiences hear none of this because the majority of American and world media have fallen prey to Hamas’s most powerful ongoing terrorist operation: A disinformation and glasnost campaign designed to destroy western support for Israel through a constant barrage of media bias.

Here is how the disinformation and glasnost campaign has been executed in response to Operation Protective Edge :

Seed of Truth: Palestinian civilians are being killed by Israeli rocket fire in Gaza.

Pack of Lies: Israelis are safely protected in bomb shelters under the Iron Dome while their military targets innocent civilians in the impoverished Gaza Strip.

Ultimate Goal: Encourage American and worldwide support for the Hamas campaign to wipe Israel off the map and eliminate all evidence of the Zionist entity, including the Jewish people and their supporters, from the face of the earth.

The glasnost element is the most perverse. Hamas plays on the western disbelief in the idea of martyrs, portraying these women and children as “innocent civilian victims” of Israeli aggression. When speaking to the non-Western media, these dead are referred to in a term most recently used by Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas, “the Gazan martyrs.” Glasnost is the term for glorifying the leader’s image abroad. In this case, Hamas is using the bodies of women and children to shield their missiles in life and glorify their reputations in death.

Some news agencies and opinion sites are catching onto this disinformation campaign, willing to call it “media bias against Israel.” This is more than media bias. This is a calculated effort on the part of Hamas to sway world opinion against the only nation willing to confront and fight against Islamic terror. Therefore, whether the mainstream media is a willing partner in this endeavor makes no matter. The bottom line is, the media is marketing this disinformation to audiences in America and worldwide that are watching blind, with no Iron Dome to protect them.

Read bullet | 19 Comments »

Time Well Spent? Obama Isn’t Where He Needs to Be

Thursday, July 10th, 2014 - by Nathan D. Lichtman

I’m not going to delve into the situation in Israel. I’m only going to say that I am beyond saddened by the death of the kidnapped teens, appalled by the unleashing of rockets on Israeli cities, and concerned for Israel’s ability to defend herself. I will not even entertain the critics’ argument, that Israel is an aggressor, and deserves carnage and punishment. These arguments are made by people who do not know the history, and who do not have the courage to know what is right. Israel is the only free democracy in the Middle East, the biggest proponent towards peace, and the main funder of Gaza and West Bank services. And Israel is a sworn ally of the US.

This last statement is something President Obama has trouble remembering.

With rockets overhead and bomb sirens becoming a norm, Israel is in crisis. Since the situation escalated, Obama has not even made a phone call to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. Not any kind of reassuring message, nor any offer of support. Silence.

Remember President Bush, in 2003, said directly to then Prime Minister Sharon, “Israel must not feel constrained in defending the homeland.” But he’s a right-winger! In 1994, President Clinton spoke before the Israeli Knesset (parliament) and said, “Israel must always be able to defend itself,” and reaffirmed the US’ commitment to stand by our ally. So where’s Obama’s statement to the people of Israel? Not even a phone call?!?

Meanwhile, Obama has been in the Southwest of our country. He spoke of the need to reform our immigration policy, and asked for billions of dollars to strengthen border security as he enables a quasi-amnesty anyway. But, he was in Texas. Did he go to see the border he’s talking about? Did he look at what unique factors might need to be taken into account? Did he ask border patrol and local enforcement officers what could best be done?

President Bush did. He toured a long patch of the border in 2006, to ascertain what could be done to assist Federal law enforcement. This is after serving as Governor of Texas.

Obama did not. The Selfie-in-Chief claimed that he did not want to go actually look at our border, because he doesn’t like photo ops.

So he didn’t go to the border, and he hasn’t called Israel. What has our President had time to do in the past few days?

Obama has been watching the World Cup; he even dropped in on a party to cheer on our team. And, he knows how to dial a phone, because he called Soccer players Tim Howard and Clint Dempsey after their loss. And he had a debaucherous night of drinking, billiards, and mustache complimenting, in Denver.

Now don’t get me wrong, I enjoy a beer or several. And I have been avidly watching the World Cup—but not in detriment to my job. I would not fail to meet my obligations because I was too busy drinking, partying, and watching sports.

But calling foreign dignitaries and securing our borders are the President’s job responsibilities. Like literally—they are two of the only things the Constitution actually says he should do.

So Obama: it’s time to start putting your responsibilities first.

Read bullet | Comments »

Obama Administration Threatens Israel Under Fire

Wednesday, July 9th, 2014 - by Susan L.M. Goldberg

YouTube Preview Image

What do you do when you’ve got some time to kill in an Israeli bomb shelter? Start a spirited sing along, of course. If you’re a guest in the Dan Hotel in Jerusalem, your song of choice is Oseh Shalom, (A Prayer for Peace): “He who makes peace in High Places, He will make peace for us and for all Israel and let us say, Amen.”

Meanwhile, at the Ha’aretz peace conference (where right-wing Israeli politicians get punched by pacifist leftists), White House Mideast chief Phillip Gordon delineated a series of thinly-veiled threats, so thinly veiled, in fact, that he had to actually include the following phrase in his speech:

Let me be absolutely clear that these are not threats.

No, in fact, they came off more like a public relations campaign issued from a platform granted by an already hot far-Left crowd that makes no bones about their admiration for a two-state solution. Remove the veil and it is plain to see Gordon’s threat: Israel will  ”…embolden extremists on both sides, tear at Israel’s democratic fabric, and feed mutual dehumanization.”

Embracing an HBO-esque mobster tone, Gordon so politely “advised”:

Reaching a peace agreement with the Palestinians would help turn the tide of international sentiment and sideline violent extremists, further bolstering Israel’s security. We know all too well the troubles that can arise for Israel internationally when there is no movement on the political track, especially when settlement activity continues to make the potential peace map more difficult and to undermine international support for Israel. On this, I should also be clear of the United States’ longstanding position: we consider settlements illegitimate and an impediment to progress on peace negotiations. Settlement announcements would be a counter-productive reaction to the kidnapping and murder of the three Israeli teenagers.

…if we fail to come back to peace talks, renewed efforts to isolate Israel internationally and legitimize Palestinian statehood unilaterally are all but certain. The United States will do all it can to fight boycotts and other delegitimization efforts. But in many of these realms, particularly outside the Security Council, our ability to contain the damage is limited, and becoming more and more challenging. This is what American friends of Israel mean when they express concerns about the potential for Israeli isolation if peace talks do not succeed. Let me be absolutely clear that these are not threats. The United States will always have Israel’s back.

One thing is clear from this peace conference speech: Gordon and the Obama administration have Israel’s back …up against a wall. Ironically, peace conference attendees would later run to bomb shelters for cover as sirens indicated another Hamas rocket was on its way. Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, the same guy Gordon cites as a courageous and reliable peace partner, hasn’t uttered a word to stop his government’s partner from firing in Israel’s direction. Nor has he bothered to reveal that his own Fatah members are joining in the rocket barrage. In fact, the most this “peace partner” can say is, ”it all started when Israel fired back”.

Keep singing in those shelters, Israel. While the American people support you, our administration is failing you. He Who Makes Peace in High Places is our only hope.

Read bullet | 5 Comments »

Brookings Scholar Tweets: Israel Finally Dupes Hamas into Bombing Israel

Tuesday, July 8th, 2014 - by Patrick Poole

Charles Lister of the Brookings Institution is a sought-after expert on the jihadist insurgency in Syria. But this morning he decided to wade into the Israel-Hamas conflict, tweeting out this gem:

Lister-Israel-HamasMissing from Lister’s 140 character analysis, however, is the fact that missiles from Hamas-controlled Gaza have been raining down on Israel all year, with 450 launched so far in 2014 — 250 of those within the past week and 80 yesterday alone. Fully 40 percent of Israel’s population — 3.5 million — live within range of missile strikes from Gaza. The vast majority of missiles launched from Gaza end up hitting non-military targets.

Of particular concern is that Hamas has been the recipient of longer-range missiles from Iran, including the Fajr-5 and the M-75, which has an effective range of 75km. This is why Hamas officials were bragging to the media back in March that in any future confrontation that the “heart of Israel” would be targeted. Just days before that boast, Israel stopped a Gaza-bound ship loaded with 40 long-range rockets that could travel as far as 160km (100 miles).

The 1988 Hamas Covenant also invokes a notorious Hadith calling for the genocide of Jews (article 7):

Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah’s promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

“The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

Lister is currently a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Doha Center, which is funded by the State of Qatar. One of the chief architects of the recent rapprochement between Hamas and Iran (on opposite sides of the Syrian conflict) has reportedly been Qatari Foreign Minister Khalid al-Attiyah, who visited Iran in late February.

Read bullet | Comments »

Mohammed Abu Khdeir and Jewish Guilt’s Double Standard

Monday, July 7th, 2014 - by Susan L.M. Goldberg



We, the Jewish people, are good at guilt. Gilbert Gottfried jokes that, in the Jewish world, the fetus is only viable after its finished law school. I’d add to Gottfried’s joke by explaining the reason for the degree: So that we may continue to expertly condemn ourselves in the court of public opinion.

This past weekend, Jews across the political spectrum rushed to denounce the murderous crime committed by radical Jewish activists in Israel. The fact that we live in a world where one must proclaim their disgust of such a vile act is a crime in and of itself. However, it is not their condemnation of the act, but the tone and style of their condemnation that I call into question. We don’t expect all Palestinians, nor all Muslims to apologize for the acts of radicals. Why, then, should we expect the entire nation of Israel, and Jewry’s worldwide collective, to apologize for the crime of 6 Israeli Jews?

Of the murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir, Ben Shapiro rightly observed:

The world will apply Western standards of morality to the Jewish nationalists, as they should – they will not ask about their “root causes” or ponder their anger. They will then ignore those same Western standards, as they always have, when dealing with the Palestinians… Because Jew hatred is all about double standards and ignoring the facts.

We are all too familiar with the world’s double standard when it comes to judging Israel’s every breath. The Zionist nation has become the brunt for the Jewish burden established on Mount Sinai. We were called out to be different, to be a “light”, an example for the nations to follow, and we have been paying for being the “good student” ever since. Despite what our detractors would lead you to believe, we take our Biblical responsibility very seriously, and have no problem holding it over our collective head when even one of us fails to achieve the group’s objective.  This is why Jewish accusations against our people’s moral fiber are running at an all-time high. It is also precisely why they shouldn’t be.

People of Israel, world Jewry at large, stop your self-flagellation. Your enemies will make the most of 6 bad decision makers the way any disinformation operative makes the most of a good crisis. In the meantime, you think your best defense is a self-inflicted finger in the wound before the bullies can poke at it for you? Neither you nor I are guilty for the bad choices of others. They should and will receive the full punishment that the law allows. That is our testimony to our God, ourselves and to the world of who we are: a nation of laws, not terror, or as one Jewish Press writer so eloquently put it:

We didn’t destroy trains and infrastructure, we didn’t hand out candies in celebration, we didn’t post photos of praise on Twitter and Facebook, we didn’t provide support and succor to the killers. We won’t be giving them salaries in jail, we won’t be naming streets and schools after them, we won’t be demanding their release for peace. Our mother’s won’t be saying they are proud of them, our leaders won’t have photo-ops with them, we won’t parade them through the streets as heroes, they won’t be portrayed as role models for our children, and we won’t be painting murals of them on the walls of our schools.

If you really want a sackcloth and ashes moment, take a tip from the families of Eyal, Gilad, Naftali and Mohammed, children who were murdered by the kind of insane radicals whose stripe transcends any and every national identity. Spare me your incessant, neurotic, hot-air attempts at obtaining the forgiveness you don’t need and the approval you so desperately seek. Want to be respected? Stop equating 13.8 million Jews worldwide, 6.1 million of them Israelis, with 6 murderous lunatics.

Read bullet | Comments »

Obama’s Secret Directive Supporting Global Islamism

Monday, July 7th, 2014 - by Raymond Ibrahim

recent Gulf News report sheds some light on how and why the United States helped bring the Muslim Brotherhood and its Islamist allies to power, followed by all the subsequent chaos and atrocities in the Mideast region.

Large portions of the report follow with my commentary interspersed for added context:

Dubai: For the past decade, two successive US administrations have maintained close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Tunisia, Syria and Libya, to name just the most prominent cases.

The Obama administration conducted an assessment of the Muslim Brotherhood in 2010 and 2011, beginning even before the events known as the “Arab Spring” erupted in Tunisia and in Egypt. The President personally issued Presidential Study Directive 11 (PSD-11) in 2010, ordering an assessment of the Muslim Brotherhood and other “political Islamist” movements, including the ruling AKP in Turkey, ultimately concluding that the United States should shift from its longstanding policy of supporting “stability” in the Middle East and North Africa (that is, support for “stable regimes” even if they were authoritarian), to a policy of backing “moderate” Islamic political movements (emphasis in bold added throughout).

And we have certainly witnessed this shift.  Chaos and the Islamic ascendancy in the Middle East and North Africa never flourished as under the Obama administration—and precisely because the administration shifted from supporting stability under secular-minded autocrats.

The most significant example of this is how the Obama administration threw Hosni Mubarak—a U.S. ally for three decades—under the bus in order to support the Islamists, most specifically the Muslim Brotherhood.  And we saw how that ended—with another revolution, hailed as the largest revolution in human history, with the average Egyptian accusing Obama of being a terrorist supporter.

To this day, PSD-11 remains classified, in part because it reveals an embarrassingly naïve and uninformed view of trends in the Middle East and North Africa (Mena) region.

“Embarrassingly naïve and uninformed view” is synonymous with the “orthodox and mainstream view pushed forth by Mideast studies professors and academics,” especially those with political influence, such as the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies of Georgetown University, in Washington D.C.  Such programs, which I’m only too well acquainted with, begin with false—that is, “embarrassingly naïve and uninformed”—premises, namely: that the source of all the region’s woes are (formerly) U.S.-propped autocrats (reality is that dictators don’t create such societies but rather are the natural outcome of Islamic societies and are the ones most prone to keeping law and order—compare Iraq under Saddam and Iraq now, as a “democracy,” with “ISIS” proclaiming a caliphate).

Mideast academics have also long spearheaded the idea that there are “moderate” Islamists and “radical” Islamists, and that the U.S. should work with the former (in reality they are all radical—to be an Islamist is to be radical—the only difference is that the “moderate” Islamists don’t wear their radicalism on their sleeves, even as they work toward the same goals that the more open “radicals” work for, namely, a Sharia-enforcing caliphate)… Keep reading

Read bullet | Comments »

Video: Is the Jihad Islam’s ‘Reformation’?

Thursday, July 3rd, 2014 - by Raymond Ibrahim

Does Islam need a “Protestant Reformation?” What if the jihad is it?

I recently appeared on Sun News’ Byline with Brian Lilley, discussing my PJ Media article, “Islam’s Protest Reformation” (part 1, part 2)

YouTube Preview Image


Read bullet | Comments »

Second American Arrested for Aiding ISIS

Thursday, July 3rd, 2014 - by Bryan Preston

A Colorado woman was arrested in April for attempting to join up with ISIS, according to CNN.

Shannon Maureen Conley, 19, allegedly told FBI agents before her arrest that she was going to be with a member of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, that she had met through the Internet.

“It’s a difficult time for us,” her mother, Ana Conley, told CNN on Wednesday.

Conley’s attorney, Robert William Pepin, said he had no comment.

His client was arrested on a jetway while trying to board a flight to Germany on April 8, according to a criminal complaint. She told investigators she was going to Turkey to await word from her suitor.

Conley, a certified nurse aide, had told FBI agents she was going to be the man’s wife and a nurse in a ISIS camp near the Turkish border, documents showed.

Conley is the second American known to have been arrested in the course of attempting to leave the country to go aid ISIS. The other is Michael Todd Wolfe of Austin, TX. The FBI arrested him in June as he attempted to leave the country to join up with ISIS in Syria.

The Daily Mail adds a wealth of detail about Conley. She apparently told investigators that she favors guerilla warfare “because she could do it alone.” She has also told investigators that she converted to Islam.

FBI agents have become aware of Conley’s communication with the foreign national and reached out to the 19-year-old and her parents, John and Ana Conley, urging her not to go to Syria, NBC reported.

But according to a federal official, Conley could not be dissuaded. He added that the 19-year-old suffers from mental problems.

Mr Conley told agents that his daughter described jihad to him as a struggle to help the poor and the downtrodden, but she herself had been plagued by doubts about what was expected of her as a Muslim woman.

‘She conceded her knowledge of Islam was based solely on her own research that she conducted on the Internet,’ the affidavit said.

She had reportedly changed her name to “Halima” and started wearing Islamic dress.

Investigators found CDs in her luggage that were labeled “Anwar al-Awlaki.” He was the cleric who exorted Americans to attack within the United States. Nidal Hassan took Awlaki up on that, and went on a murderous rampage at Fort Hood, Texas. The Obama administration continues to label Hassan’s massacre as “workplace violence,” not terrorism.

Read bullet | 6 Comments »

ISIS Chief: After Iraq, Next Stop Rome

Tuesday, July 1st, 2014 - by Bryan Preston

Presented without comment, because it speaks for itself.

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self-proclaimed leader of the Islamic State stretching across Iraq and Syria, has vowed to lead the conquest of Rome as he called on Muslims to immigrate to his new land to fight under its banner around the globe.

Interesting timing. With the Muslim prayer recently held at the Vatican and all.

Baghdadi, who holds a PhD in Islamic studies, said Muslims were being targetted and killed from China to Indonesia. Speaking as the first Caliph, or commander of the Islamic faithful since the dissolution of the Ottoman empire, he called on Muslims to rally to his pan-Islamic state.

“Those who can immigrate to the Islamic State should immigrate, as immigration to the house of Islam is a duty,” he said in an audio recording released on a website used by the group formerly known as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham.

“Rush O Muslims to your state. It is your state. Syria is not for Syrians and Iraq is not for Iraqis. The land is for the Muslims, all Muslims.

“This is my advice to you. If you hold to it you will conquer Rome and own the world, if Allah wills.”

They’re jihadists without borders.

Hassan Hassan, an analyst at Abu Dhabi’s Delma Institute, wrote that Baghdadi provided the most radical challenge since the emergence of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. “The whispers of support to a caliph in Afghanistan are now replaced by clear words and acts, amplified by social media,” he said. “Jihadism has evolved significantly. It is no longer limited to narrow “elitists” who travel to distant countries to wage jihad. Today’s jihad is more sophisticated and individualised and can be waged everywhere.”

Everywhere, indeed. Everywhere.

Read bullet | 10 Comments »

Scott Ott’s 5 Secrets for Squaring Obama’s Words with His Actions in Iraq

Tuesday, July 1st, 2014 - by Scott Ott

The 750 U.S. military advisers in Iraq are part of the contingent of up to 300 (three hundred) advisers that President Obama, 11 days ago, said “will not be returning to combat in Iraq, but…will help Iraqis as they take the fight to terrorists who threaten the Iraqi people, the region and American interests as well.

Politics ends at the waters edge, so we should make every effort to respect our president and take him at his word, even if that requires what Sen. Hillary Clinton once called “a willing suspension of disbelief.”

So, to accomplish this, and to square the president’s words with his actions, I offer what I call…

Scott Ott’s 5 Secrets for Squaring Obama’s Words with His Actions in Iraq

1) Part-time advisers: Because the president said he’d send up to 300 advisers, some of the 750 advisers he actually sent must be part-timers. What President Obama meant by “up to 300″ was 300 full-time equivalents (FTE). If we assume a 40-hour work week, then each of the 750 advisers is putting in roughly 16 hours per week for a total of 300 FTE. In the coming days, should the president order the deployment of more advisers, you can do the math to figure out how many hours each will work to maintain his commitment to 300 FTE.

Read bullet | 14 Comments »

Bill Clinton Attacks His Own Wife and Himself Over Iraq

Friday, June 27th, 2014 - by Bryan Preston

Maybe the years of grinding poverty are getting to Bill Clinton. Or maybe it’s the pressure of always having to hide so much. Shopping for $550 watches to give away as party favors takes a toll on a guy. But at least Bill Clinton knows his Shinola watches from…not Shinola watches.

The old president’s memory may be getting faulty. In an interview with NBC’s David Gregory, Clinton weighed in on the current crisis in Iraq. Gregory set Clinton up by citing former Vice President Dick Cheney’s recent op-ed on the crisis, in which Cheney blames President Barack Obama’s decision to pull all American troops from Iraq without obtaining a status of forces agreement, or SOFA. Such an agreement would have left a residual US force in Iraq to deal with contingencies in the fledgling democracy, such as the march of hyper-violent terrorist group ISIS across Iraqi territory. That crisis threatens to destroy the state of Iraq itself, and replace it with a radical Islamist caliphate.

After citing the Cheney op-ed, Gregory asked Clinton, “Do you believe Cheney is a credible critic on these matters?”

That’s the wrong question. The question isn’t whether Cheney is “credible,” it’s whether the facts on the ground render Cheney right or wrong right now. Gregory’s question is an open invitation to attack the person, not deal with the facts.

Clinton responded to Gregory’s question as Gregory wanted him to. He chuckled, then said: “You know, I believe, if they hadn’t gone to war in Iraq, none of this would be happening.” He tossed Gregory a smug look, the audience ate it up.

The “they” who went to war in Iraq includes two people who are not stepping up to take any share of whatever blame ought to be meted out now. They are Bill and Hillary Clinton.

YouTube Preview Image

The first part of that clip is from Clinton’s presidency, the second part is from then Sen. Hillary Clinton’s speech announcing her vote to support the invasion of Iraq in 2002.

The Clintons were by no means the only Democrats to have argued over the years that Saddam was a threat, that Iraq had to be dealt with.

YouTube Preview Image

In 2004, Bill Clinton was still out there arguing that the war had been the right thing to do. So he was with VP Cheney then. Bill Clinton was part of the “they” who went to war.

Read bullet | 8 Comments »

Why Does the Left Hate Native American Names?

Friday, June 27th, 2014 - by Scott Ott

The Left is apparently on the warpath to expunge all references to Native American peoples from our lexicon. And it’s not just the Washington Redskins, Cleveland Indians and other sports franchises under threat of this ethnic cleansing of our language.

Now, a Washington Post op-ed calls for scrubbing tribal names from U.S. military hardware — Apache, Chinook, Black Hawk helicopters, Tomahawk missiles and mission names like Operation Geronimo (which got bin Laden), for example.

If successful, the Left’s war on Native American words will remove practically all verbal evidence of the people who occupied these lands before the invasion of the English, Germans, Dutch, Irish, Mexicans and others. Their legacy will survive only in textbooks, museums and casinos — and most Americans completely ignore two out of three of those.

Call the White House today and tell President Obama that he can scrub the mention of Islam from reports on terrorism, but he can’t take away our Native American names.

Read bullet | 7 Comments »

Rep. Ellmers (R-NC) on Obama Foreign Policy: ‘Our Enemies Don’t Fear Us’

Thursday, June 26th, 2014 - by Paula Bolyard
YouTube Preview Image

In an interview with Shark Tank Carolinas, Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC) blasted President Obama for his lack of leadership on foreign policy saying that “our allies don’t know if we are with them and our enemies don’t fear us.”

Ellmers also criticized President Obama for not informing Congress about the decision to release five Taliban leaders from Gitmo in exchange for American soldier Bowe Bergdahl. “He is an American, but at the same time, the fact is that we were completely bypassed. And yet those who came and briefed us on this issue fully acknowledged that there were 80 or 90 members of the White House — staff of the White House — that were aware of this situation, but not one member of Congress,” Ellmers said. “Not one representative from the House. Not one senator. Not one member of intel,” she added.

Ellmers said that she reached out via email to a female member of the Afghan parliament who expressed her alarm about the release of the Taliban members. “She responded back very candidly that this puts fear in their minds — that these five Taliban are responsible for thousands being murdered in a couple different provinces,” Ellmers said.

The Afghan parliamentarian asked if Americans truly stand for human rights. “I can’t believe that President Obama would make this choice,” she said, adding that it has caused great fear in Afghanistan.

Ellmers told the Afghan woman that members of Congress “are fully standing behind Afghan women, Afghan people,” explaining that Americans want them to have a democracy. “We want them to be in charge and feel that sense of freedom/ … They need to know that the American people are with them.”

The North Carolina congresswoman said that President Obama’s decision on the prisoner swap damaged our foreign policy credibility. ”I think that was a very, very strong statement we made, that we would release these individuals,” Ellmers said. ”Across the world, our allies don’t know if we are with them and our enemies don’t fear us.”

Read bullet | Comments »

30 Books for Defeating Valerie Jarrett’s Cult of Political Criminals

Thursday, June 26th, 2014 - by Dave Swindle

I just finished Ben Shapiro's new book and it's a phenomenal must-read that makes the case as it needs to be made: criminality is what matters, not ideology or personality. A longer piece forthcoming...

Almost 2 years ago I offered my picks for “The 15 Best Books for Understanding Barack Obama’s Mysterious Political Theology” as my final case against the President before the election. These were the titles I selected and still recommend everyone read, today’s new list of 30 books is an expansion of this original list:

1. Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism by Stanley Kurtz

2. Spreading the Wealth: How Obama is Robbing the Suburbs to Pay for the Cities by Stanley Kurtz

3. Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department by J. Christian Adams

4. Subversion, Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers by Matthew Vadum

5. The Autobiography of Malcolm X as told to Alex Haley

6. Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention by Manning Marable

7. Dreams from my FatherA Story of Race and Inheritance by Barack Obama

8. Barack Obama: The Story by David Maraniss

9. Among the Truthers: A Journey Through America’s Growing Conspiracist Underground by Jonathan Kay

10. Shariah: The Threat To America: An Exercise In Competitive Analysis (Report of Team B II)

11. The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America by Andrew C. McCarthy

12. Why the Jews? The Reason for Antisemitism by Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin

13. Marxism: Philosophy and Economics by Thomas Sowell

14. Sex Rebel: Black, Memoirs of a Gash Gourmet by Bob Greene (pseudonym for Frank Marshall Davis)

15. Afrolantica Legacies by Derrick Bell

After summarizing some of the points from the books and their real-world impact in the administration’s policies, I concluded:

Sitting here on this Sunday morning before the election, the Sun now up, reflecting back on these years scouring through dusty old Marxist books, trying to understand a president who built his career on a mountain of lies, I confess a peace with either electoral result on Tuesday. A part of me almost wishes that Obama steals wins reelection (as I anticipate he will). The thought of him quietly retiring to a mansion in Hawaii in January to live out the rest of his life in comfort and adoration should inspire nausea. Only if Obama wins reelection do conservatives have a chance to hold him accountable for Benghazi, Fast and Furious, and all the crimes we don’t even know about yet. The man has blood on his hands and we can’t let him get away with it.

An ancient dictum popularized in recent years by the late Christopher Hitchens on the path forward, should Tuesday disappoint:

Fiat justitia ruat caelum

Do Justice and Let the Skies Fall

Over the course of 2013 my views evolved about who seemed to really be making the decisions at the White House. By January this year I began arguing that Obama’s mentor, Valerie Jarrett, was the real power-broker and the one responsible for most of the terrible policies that the administration implemented. From my article “Welcome to Single Mom Nation: In 2014 Acknowledge the Matriarchs Who Really Run America,” where I presented some of the evidence and my conclusions:

Now we know that actually Jarrett was the one with the political savvy who was grooming Obama all along so that she could use him to implement her agenda. Obama is just her mask…

My prediction: when the history books are written the real decision-maker will start to emerge more fully as Jarrett. As people try and make sense of an administration adrift they’ll start to realize that this is a federal government essentially being run by two single moms pulling the strings of the performer son of a single mom with a basic goal of just trying to make America a less “mean” place for other single moms. It’s a matriarchal administration running on emotion and instinct, like a mother crocodile snapping to protect her eggs. This is what happens when a culture that rejects the importance of the Judeo-Christian, nuclear family model takes control of the Democratic Party and the federal government…

President Jarrett has been so successful because she has implemented the most effective of Saul Alinsky’s Chicago gangster community organizing tactics at the national level. (And centrist-corporatist Clinton narcissist Democrats in the primaries and neoconservative-corporatist boomer Republicans in the general elections didn’t even realize what hit them.)

Conservatives should strive to defeat Jarrett the same way that the feds eventually managed to get her ideological predecessor, Al Capone: not for the big crimes but for the small ones like tax evasion. Activists should aspire to discover conclusive, bulletproof evidence of acts she has engaged in which would force her to fall from power, no longer able to implement her across-the-board policies of American weakness.

So of course I’m thrilled with the approach my friend Ben Shapiro chose for his new book, which I’ve recently finished reading. Rather than continue to see the Democrats merely as a rival political party with differing solutions for public policy problems, Ben puts Left vs Right aside and instead makes the case for criminal prosecution of individual members of the Obama administration, structuring each chapter with opening and closing arguments:

Here are the 7 #criminal charges Ben Shapiro lays out against the Obama administration in his great new book.

1. The People Vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against the Obama Administration by Ben Shapiro

One of the biggest mistakes that I’ve observed in so many activists over the years is seeing politics and ideology as the end-all-be-all of how to fix the world. A certain mentality seems to predominate amongst many activists and writers that creates a tunnel vision. If we can just elect the right people and pass the right laws then we can fix America’s problems. Campaigning and activism arise as the paramount solutions.

But sometimes they’re not. Political opponents who embrace the legitimacy of America’s political traditions can be defeated through superior campaign tactics and more inspiring candidates. But criminal organizations willing to subvert the rule of law and do anything to maintain power — like let Americans die at terrorists’ hands rather than look bad during an election, like use the IRS to muzzle and harass opponents, like distribute guns to a Mexican drug cartel in order to further gun control legislation — cannot. The game has been rigged and trying to win it is as foolhardy as playing Monopoly against someone pocketing $500s from the bank when you’re not looking.

The realization that I hope more activists are starting to make as we round the corner into the last fourth of Obama’s presidency: the Democratic Party isn’t a political party that allies with criminals, it’s a criminal organization that has hijacked a political party. Ben lays out the evidence on 7 crimes, any of which individually would have been more than enough to impeach any other president unprotected by a friendly media.

Part of the reason why I agree with Ben’s thesis so strongly is that I’ve continued reading so many other books on related topics that support it, revealing misunderstood concepts in politics, culture, and history. Here’s a list of some of them that are most on my mind this summer as I continue to piece together the tactics and historical predecessors of the criminal organization that’s conned its way into the White House. Some of these are new books just released that I’m reading for the first time, others have been out for years and I’m just getting to them, and some are ones that I’ve already read and am returning to again to read more closely and to guide future research. For each book I’ll explain in brief why it’s a useful piece of the puzzle for understanding an aspect of how our government has been subverted by lifelong, committed activists who do not care if Rule of Law stands in the way of implementing their egalitarian fantasies.

Here’s an index of the 29 more books introduced here in support of shifting to a criminal justice approach rather than an ideological activist protest in the twilight of the Jarrett-Obama presidency; I would encourage you to jump to whichever subject or author interests you most:

  • 3 on disinformation by former Romanian spymaster Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa
  • 3 on terrorism by former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy
  • the final 2 by the late Barry Rubin, scholar of the Middle East’s history, culture, and politics
  • 3 on Islam and the Jihad today
  • 5 on racism and how to overcome it
  • 3 on Marxism, its roots, its spread in the 20th century, and how it made a foothold in America which would one day bring it to presidential power
  • 5 on cults, idol worship, and the origins of religion
  • 5 on American history and its revisionists
  • Concluding with an introduction to one of the next subjects of my writing and research, which ties together the themes of all 30 books with Jarrett and Michelle Obama’s favorite TV show…

Read bullet | Comments »

Latest ISIS PR Move: Jihadists and Their Cats

Thursday, June 26th, 2014 - by Bridget Johnson

The Islamist State of Iraq and the Levant, aka ISIL or ISIS, aka the successor to al-Qaeda in Iraq, has taken social media terrorism to a whole new level since the group began storming through Iraqi cities. In addition to tweeting pictures of their parades, guns, swimming parties, shopping, cupcakes and truck decals…




Now, apparently jihadists and their cats are a thing, because what better way to burnish their pop-culture creds than furry animals?





Still haven’t seen them issue motivational posters with the phrase “Dogs wag, cats wage jihad.”

Read bullet | 8 Comments »

ISIS Brand Goes Global with ‘United We Stand’ T-Shirts, Twitter and Facebook Assists

Monday, June 23rd, 2014 - by Bryan Preston

The jihadis currently rampaging across Iraq are getting assists from skilled marketing experts and designers.

With more than 9,000 likes on Facebook, retailer Zirah Moslem on its website calls itself a purveyor of “Islamic style” and sells clothing that promotes a range of Islamist groups.

In one design, emblazoned with the slogan “Mujahideen Around the World/ United We Stand”, figures wearing keffiyeh and brandishing weapons pose like characters on a Hollywood movie poster.

Other T-shirts promote the Taliban and Hamas, both named as terrorist organisations by the US state department.

Isis’s bloody exploits in Iraq, where it is battling government forces for control of swathes of the country, have won it supporters among Indonesia’s Sunni Muslim population.

“They see that Isis has succeeded in some areas in Syria and Iraq,” Jakarta based terrorism expert Solahudin said. “They’ve already declared an Islamic state there. A caliphate is the ultimate goal for every jihadist in Indonesia.”

That’s as good a reason as any to wipe these jihadists out. Their victories are encouraging others worldwide to take up the cause.

The worms are also pretty good at Twitter.

Islamists leading the jihadist advance in Iraq are using the World Cup and leading British football clubs to seek recruits and spread their propaganda via social media, The Independent can reveal.

Tweets sent from the accounts used by the propaganda operation of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isis) and its supporters are being labelled with hashtags such as #Brazil2014, #ENG, #France and #WC2014 to try to hijack the World Cup tournament to spread their message.

The tactic, which allows Isis to access millions of World Cup Twitter searches in the hope that some will click on links to its propaganda material, was being deployed this weekend to disseminate a video showing British and Australian jihadists trying to persuade other western Muslims to join their ranks.

The jihadists are already better at recruiting than the government of the United Kingdom (they’re probably better at soccer, too).

More British citizens signed up to fight in Iraq and Syria than joined the Army Reserve last year, it can be revealed. Just 170 extra reservists enlisted over the past year – despite a Government target to boost the stand-by force by 11,000 by 2018.

But at the same time the brutal al-Qaeda inspired ISIS forces tearing through Iraq have been boosted by ‘several hundred’ Brits, ministers told MailOnline.

Terror experts believe there could be as many as 500 Brits fighting alongside the jihadists in the Middle East for ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria).

It works! They just picked up “Osama bin Bieber.”

Meanwhile, the 300 US special forces operators heading to Iraq won’t even get legal immunity from Iraq’s sharia kangaroo courts.

You can look cool with your kaffiyah fighting for Allah and your 72 virgins, or you can fight for a pencil-neck who never served in the military and can’t be bothered to make sure that we even call terror attacks against American forces on American soil what they actually are.

Bonus: Obama’s military is suppressing Christianity, America’s majority religion by far.

Yay, team…?

Read bullet | Comments »

Caption Contest Winners: Democratic Party Screws Up Flag Day and More Summertime Fun

Monday, June 23rd, 2014 - by Myra Adams
Flag day

Image tweeted by DNC on Flag Day


Thanks for all who entered our latest contest. As usual, PJM readers showed the world what great believers they are in, “Truth, Justice and the American Way.” (As an aside, the first person who can identify the character associated with that slogan receives a shout-out during our next contest.)

Now, the news is bad all around: the Middle East is imploding, it’s a free-for-all on our southern border, Putin is poised to conquer the Ukraine, and since our days as a great nation are numbered, without further ado, here are the winning captions.

There was one grand pooh-bah of a winner who deserves to wrap himself in the flag and that is RockThisTown who wrote the grand prize winning caption:

Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses . . . yearning to get an EBT card.

And… RockThisTown had another winning caption that reflected a memorable Obama-ism of days gone by:

At some point, you’ve made enough American flags.

Our reigning Caption King, Chris Henderson was also a winner with a twist on another Obama-ism:

“Betsy Ross, you didn’t build that!”

Zip Code won with:

I came here for the American dream and now I find out even the ex First Lady is dead broke.

Then the great cfbleachers had several winners:

First, making light of the Democratic National Committee celebrating Flag Day with a photo tweet using red, white and blue bunting instead of a flag, he wrote:

Iraq collapsing into ISIS hands, Benghazi a swirl of deceit and corruption, Ukraine overrun by communist tanks.  … Just when American morale needs a patriotic home run…Obama and the Democrats are bunting.

Second, because making fun of the IRS is just so easy these days (before they come after us) cfbleachers wrote:

All the real US flags were being held for safekeeping by the IRS…but they lost them.

Finally, because there is nothing important happening in our nation or the world, the Vice-President of the United States threw his annual first day of summer pool party this past weekend.  Here is a photo of the jolly host with his water weapon of choice, a deadly super-soaker.  This is not an official caption contest but I am confident you will all have some fun playing around with it. See you all next time a photo is super worthy of an official PJ Media caption contest!

Biden supersoaker

Credit: David Nakamura





Read bullet | 5 Comments »

Lee Tries to Block Funding for Obama’s Iraq Operations

Friday, June 20th, 2014 - by Bridget Johnson

The sole congressional vote against going into Afghanistan after 9/11 is trying to put the brakes on any action President Obama wants to take in Iraq.

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) tried attaching amendments to the defense authorization bill that passed the House today.

“Despite support from the American people to end our nation’s perpetual state of war, Congress has not repealed the multiple Authorizations for Use of Military Force that have created the quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan and amounts to blank check for endless war,” Lee said.

Her first amendment would have blocked any funding for Iraq operations. “President Obama has told the American people there is no military solution in Iraq and he’s right,” she said. “The situation in Iraq requires a political solution that builds a state representative and respectful of the rights for all citizens. It’s an Iraqi crisis that must be solved by Iraqis, not foreign militaries.”

Lee also had separate amendments to block funding for the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force.

“An AUMF is a powerful statement from Congress that it’s the will and in the interest of the American people to use force in a foreign country. These types of powerful action cannot remain into perpetuity,” she said. “The American people deserve a voice on whether or not American military force is used in Iraq. Congress cannot continue to offer blank checks for force while the American people have continued to express their desire for peace.”

“In failing to approve this measure, Congress has ignored its Constitutional duty to debate and give the American people a voice on matters of war and peace.”

Lee received support from Reps. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) and Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) to repeal the 2001 AUMF.

She also presented an amendment co-sponsored by Reps. Walt Jones (R-N.C.) and Jim McGovern (D-Wash.) to block funding for Afghanistan operations beyond the end of the year.

“It is clear to all that Congress must debate and approve any extension of military operations in Afghanistan beyond December 2014. After more than a decade of war, they have promised to bring our brave servicemen and women home,” said Lee. “Congress should have made that same promise and restricted future funding for war beyond the end of 2014.”

Some members voted against the final defense bill because they thought the package was just too bloated.

“The Department of Defense’s budget is out of control,” said Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.), a member of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog coalition of Democrats. “With a total cost of nearly half a trillion dollars, this legislation makes no serious effort to restructure the Pentagon’s budget to ensure the long-term fiscal health of our military. Instead, it provides an astonishing $80 billion for continuing the war in Afghanistan, despite the fact that troop levels will be drawn down to fewer than 10,000.”

“Absolutely no effort was made in this bill to scale back the purchasing of large weapon systems, and we will continue to fund military bases throughout the world that were designed to fight the wars of the past,” Schrader said. “Instead, we should be focusing on properly funding our VA health system to better care for our wounded warriors who have fought so bravely overseas.”

Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), though, said the measure keeps defense in the forefront by “providing funding for advanced equipment and technology, an across-the-board pay raise for our men and women in uniform and additional resources to help ensure America has a strong and unparalleled military force.”

“In addition to bolstering our defense operations, this bill prohibits funding for the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the U.S.,” Price added. “The president has not made a compelling case nor shown he has a plan for such a course of action. His most recent release of five Taliban commanders to relative freedom in Qatar raises serious questions about his administration’s judgment in this matter.”

Read bullet | 5 Comments »

Obama About to Sign Land-Mine Ban Against Pentagon’s Wishes

Friday, June 20th, 2014 - by Bridget Johnson

The Obama administration is days away from “committing America” the Ottawa Convention, an anti-mine pact that House Armed Services Committee leaders say could tie the hands of the military.

It also, noted chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), highlights how President Obama fixates on random policy actions while bigger, more urgent issues go unresolved.

Even if the Senate fails to approve the 1997 treaty, as is expected, signing the document holds Washington accountable under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which requires that signatories not act contrary to the pact’s “object and purpose.”

“It has come to our attention through informal sources that President Obama intends to commit America to the Ottawa Convention, renouncing the use of land mines by our Armed Forces. While the NSC has attempted to obfuscate the issue, they are noticeably silent in any denial that the President is committed to this course of action,” McKeon and Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.), chairman of the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces, said in a joint statement today. “No one can deny the painful human cost of the irresponsible use of these weapons, but committing our country to this treaty won’t do anything to repair that damage.”

“Signing the Ottawa treaty goes against the best advice our Nation’s military commanders have offered, substantially increases our risk in dangerous parts of the world, and imposes a needless financial burden on an already strapped military. It is the wrong decision for our country and it is especially problematic for key U.S. allies who do not need another reason to doubt U.S. commitment to their security,” they added.

“Many countries use landmines irresponsibly, but the United States is not one of them.  In fact, the over 400,000 mines in our inventory all either self-destruct or self-deactivate. America does more than any other country to mitigate the land mine damage done by others- spending over $2 billion on the problem since 1993. The cost to replace our mines in areas where they are essential to our defense and that of our allies, like the Korean Peninsula, will run into the hundreds of millions. The cost of an alternative defensive platform could be billions more.”


In March, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey called land mines “an important tool in the arsenal of the armed forces of the United States,” stressing that tensions on the Korean Peninsula have increased.

The Defense Department prepared a 30-page report on the dangers of signing the land-mine ban, but its contents remain classified.

“We cannot improve upon the assessment of General Dempsey,” McKeon and Forbes said. “If the White House truly wants to lay Americans concerns on this important matter to rest, they should clearly confirm that they are following the best military advice of our uniformed leadership and opposing this treaty.”

McKeon told Fox “this is a bad decision for our military.”

“It’s a bad decision for our country. It’s a bad decision for our taxpayers,” he added.

Of Obama’s decisions, McKeon said, “some… he agonizes over for a long time, and then takes no action. Some decisions just kind of seem to come out of the blue, and he takes action. It’s hard to follow this.”

Read bullet | 9 Comments »

Did the Obama Administration Just Draw Another Red Line…Over Ukraine?

Friday, June 20th, 2014 - by Bryan Preston

Protip for international leaders, diplomats and military planners, and their paid spokesmen: Don’t make threats that you have no intention of backing up.

WASHINGTON: The United States warned Friday it would not accept any use of Russian military forces in eastern Ukraine, amid reports they could be used to protect pro-Moscow civilians in the country.

“We are monitoring the situation carefully. We will not accept the use, under any pretext, of any Russian military forces in eastern Ukraine,” said Josh Earnest, a White House spokesman.

And if they do?

And if they already have? Earnest had more to say about that, and I’ll get to that, but first, here’s what’s happening.

More Russian tanks left a base in southwest Russia on Thursday, and Russia is preparing to send additional tanks to separatists in eastern Ukraine, a senior U.S. administration official said Friday. Claiming it is “ensuring security,” Russia also moved troops to within a “handful of kilometers” from Ukraine territory, even as Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko declared a weeklong ceasefire with the separatists.

The pro-Russian separatists do not appear to have any intention of laying down their arms and going along with the ceasefire, according to reports from the ground.

The Ukrainian government briefed Western diplomats in Kiev on Friday and told them it has evidence that 10 additional tanks, along with fuel trucks and supporting vehicles, crossed the border between the countries in the last 24 hours. The U.S. official said the U.S. government has independently confirmed additional tanks departed from a deployment site in southwest Russia on Thursday.

So that’s what’s happening. Here’s the rest of Earnest’s take:

“Reports from Moscow that the Russian defense ministry is considering creating military cordons in eastern Ukraine are also troubling,” Earnest said.

“We do not see any evidence that the Russian military units arriving to the region are connected to any type of border security mission.”

Pray tell, what does the Obama administration know about “border security?”

Setting that aside, the US is already aware that Russian tanks are operating inside Ukraine. Yet Team Obama is warning them not to do that. When they already are.

If the brain trust atop the Obama administration actually wanted to turn America into an origami tiger, what would they do differently from what they have already done in the name of “smart power?”



Read bullet | Comments »

Coburn: Public Opinion on Afghanistan Would be Different If Obama Conveyed Terror Threat

Wednesday, June 18th, 2014 - by Bridget Johnson

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said Washington is now living with the consequences of a “couple of irreversible errors” on Iraq, which also foretell the result of the administration’s policy on Afghanistan withdrawal.

“I mean, the tragedy that’s going to unfold in Iraq is one of two things, is we’re going to have Americans put at risk again because we didn’t leave a residual force there,” Coburn said this morning on MSNBC. “And all you had to do is look at post-1950 in Korea and post-World War II in Europe, and the stabilization of the presence of our troops has a large impact in terms of people’s behavior.”

“So we’re either going to do that or a lot of people are going to die and you’re going to see it — this continuing worsening conflict throughout the Middle East,” he added.

“You know, we have now telegraphed the exact same thing to happen in Afghanistan that’s happening in Iraq right now with the idea that we’re going to take troops out, we’re going to leave no residual — I mean, it — none of it makes sense.”

Coburn said polling on keeping U.S. forces in Afghanistan doesn’t matter as the issue isn’t properly conveyed to the public by leaders. “Had you spoken about the importance of protecting America — you know, this is really about us now. This is about putting our country at high risk again,” he said.

“You know, sitting on the Intel Committee, I can tell you that what we need is leadership to explain the importance of why we want to stop the terrorism, al-Qaeda and the Taliban, throughout the Middle East and everywhere else they are,” Coburn continued. “Because ultimately it’s going to land on our shores if we don’t. And not leading to explain that. And you know, real leadership is doing the right best thing for the country even when the public isn’t with you, and trying to win them over and then suffering the consequences if you didn’t but still doing the right thing.”

“And we’ve not done that.”

Read bullet | Comments »

The Voice of Fear: ABC Reporter in Iraq

Tuesday, June 17th, 2014 - by Scott Ott

Listen to Martha Raddatz, urgently and plaintively describe the clear and present danger to American interests in Iraq, including, one must assume, to American journalists (“People are truly afraid,” she says, because it sounds more professional than, “I am truly afraid.”)

She’s not quoting “sources,” she’s clearly speaking as a person on the ground in a chaotic country bristling with hostility toward us, and unconstrained by civilization’s rules of war.

The clip has the feel of a hostage video. 

Read bullet | 7 Comments »

Hoyer: Set Aside Blame Game on Iraq and ‘Defeat the Proponents of Terrorism’

Tuesday, June 17th, 2014 - by Bridget Johnson

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) conceded that whatever happens in Iraq, “it’s going to have consequences for us.”

“We have a group in there, whether you call it al-Qaeda, ISIS, whatever you call it, that wishes us no good, and has historically taken a lot of Americans’ lives so that we have a real stake in this, a real interest in this. Then the question becomes, OK, what do you do. I think that’s a much more complicated issue — once we decide it has consequences for us, what do we do,” Hoyer told MSNBC this morning. “I think we’re going to have to talk about that.”

Hoyer said he I talked to the administration over the weekend, including Deputy National Security Advisor Tony Blinken.

“I think we’re going to have to see what options are available to us to try to dissuade and to defeat the proponents of terrorism. Clearly, there’s a lot of blame to go around. But right now, we need to look at what can we get done in an effective way that will have some long-term consequence, not just temporary,” he stressed.

He added that the Sunni-Shiite divide in Iraq is “part of the problem, but not all of the problem.” President Obama has pressed sectarian reconciliation as an indispensable part of any plan to rid Iraq of terrorists.

“You have a group of whether it’s in Syria, in Iraq, in Iran, that very much wants to see a hegemony of their group in power and others shut out. That’s not going to work. So we need both a short-term strategy and a longer- term strategy.”

Hoyer said he believes Obama is within the law to act as he sees fit in militarily addressing the terrorists in Iraq.

“We gave him some very broad powers,” he said. “We may want to consider those at some point in time, but I think he has the authority to act, yes.”

Read bullet | Comments »

Obama Sends War Powers Notification to Congress on Sending 275 Troops to Iraq

Monday, June 16th, 2014 - by Bridget Johnson

President Obama just notified Congress that about 275 military personnel are deploying to Iraq.

Per the War Powers Resolution, Obama sent a notice to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate President Pro Tem Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) advising that the deployment began yesterday.

“Up to approximately 275 U.S. Armed Forces personnel are deploying to Iraq to provide support and security for U.S. personnel and the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. This force is deploying for the purpose of protecting U.S. citizens and property, if necessary, and is equipped for combat. This force will remain in Iraq until the security situation becomes such that it is no longer needed,” Obama writes.

“This action has been directed consistent with my responsibility to protect U.S. citizens both at home and abroad, and in furtherance of U.S. national security and foreign policy interests, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.”

In a statement accompanying the resolution, White House press secretary Jay Carney stressed that “the personnel will provide assistance to the Department of State in connection with the temporary relocation of some staff from the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad to the U.S. Consulates General in Basra and Erbil and to the Iraq Support Unit in Amman.”

“These U.S. military personnel are entering Iraq with the consent of the Government of Iraq,” Carney said. “The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad remains open, and a substantial majority of the U.S. Embassy presence in Iraq will remain in place and the embassy will be fully equipped to carry out its national security mission.”

Pentagon press secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby stressed on CNN that “the embassy is a very safe compound.”

“There is no request by the State Department for any kind of evacuation. The embassy is still up and running, still operational. It’s true that they relocated some of the personnel over the weekend, but, again, the embassy’s open, open for business,” Kirby said.

“And, look, I mean, this is always a tough call, how you make these kinds of decisions about whether to move or not to move. We are postured and ready should the State Department require that. But there has been no request, none at all. The embassy’s still open.”

Kirby also said that the steamrolling of Iraqi cities by ISIS forces was “absolutely not an intelligence failure, none at all.”

“So, this is something we have been watching for a long time,” he said. “Yes, they moved pretty quick. And, yes, as I said Friday, we were surprised and disappointed at how some of the Iraqi security forces failed to meet those threats up in the north. But it’s not something we haven’t been watching.”

Read bullet | 14 Comments »

Kerry Indicates U.S. Might Work with Shiite Extremists Against Sunni Extremists

Monday, June 16th, 2014 - by Bridget Johnson

Secretary of State John Kerry indicated to Yahoo News that he would be open to working militarily with Shiite extremist Iran to stop Sunni extremists in Iraq.

“I think we are open to any constructive process here that could minimize the violence, hold Iraq together, the integrity of the country and eliminate the presence of outside terrorist forces that are ripping it apart,” Kerry told Katie Couric.

“I wouldn’t rule out anything that would be constructive to providing real stability, a respect for the (Iraqi) constitution, a respect for the election process, and a respect for the Iraqi people to form a government that represents all of the interests of Iraq — not one sectarian group over another,” he said.

Kerry said President Obama was giving the options presented to him a “thorough vetting.”

He also doubted that ISIS could take Baghdad. “I don’t believe that they will in the near term,” he said.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) warned Friday about the temptation to get cozy with the Iranians.

“I’m very concerned about Maliki getting in bed with Iranians that, because us not really doing anything and waiting days to figure out what we might do, that the Iranians come in,” McCain said.

“I’m hearing rumors that some people say, well, that might be good in our interests. That would be a Faustian bargain, my friends. The Iranians are our enemies, and wherever we have anything to do with them, it would be a horrific mistake.”

More P5+1 meetings on Iran’s nuclear program began today in Geneva, with Under Secretary for Political Affairs Wendy R. Sherman and Deputy Secretary of State William J. Burns leading the U.S. delegation.

The administration faces a July 20 deadline for a final deal with Iran.

“Don’t think for a minute that Iran is not looking at this vacuum as a potential power grab, as well,” House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mike McCaul (R-Texas) said Sunday of the Iraq crisis. “And I think we need to be very cognizant of that fact.”

Read bullet | 5 Comments »

USS Mesa Verde Arrives in Gulf, Can Evacuate Americans if Need Be

Monday, June 16th, 2014 - by Bridget Johnson

The Pentagon said this morning that the USS Mesa Verde has arrived in the Persian Gulf to join the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush, destroyer USS Truxtun, and USS Philippine Sea.

“Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel ordered the amphibious transport dock ship USS Mesa Verde into the Arabian Gulf today. The ship has completed its transit through the Strait of Hormuz,” Pentagon press secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby said today.

“Its presence in the Gulf adds to that of other U.S. naval ships already there — including the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush — and provides the commander-in-chief additional options to protect American citizens and interests in Iraq, should he choose to use them.”

The Norfolk-based USS Mesa Verde, bearing 550 Marines, could help evacuate Americans if necessary.

“USS Mesa Verde is capable of conducting a variety of quick reaction and crisis response operations. The ship carries a complement of MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft,” Kirby said.

“USS Mesa Verde is part of the USS Bataan Amphibious Ready Group, which departed Norfolk, Virginia, in February and is operating in the region on a routine deployment to support maritime security operations.”

Dozens of Marines have already arrived at the Green Zone in Baghdad to protect the U.S. Embassy.

“At the request of the State Department, the U.S. military is providing security assistance for our diplomatic facilities in Baghdad. A small number of DOD personnel are augmenting State Department security assets in Baghdad to help ensure the safety of our facilities,” Kirby said Sunday.

“The temporary relocation of some embassy personnel is being facilitated aboard commercial, charter and State Department aircraft as appropriate,” he added. “The U.S. military has airlift assets at the ready should State Department request them, as per normal inter-agency support arrangements.”

The State Department said late Sunday afternoon that the embassy “remains open and will continue to engage daily with Iraqis and their elected leaders – supporting them as they strengthen Iraq’s constitutional processes and defend themselves from imminent threats.”

“As a result of ongoing instability and violence in certain areas of Iraq, Embassy Baghdad is reviewing its staffing requirements in consultation with the State Department,” spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in a statement. “Some additional U.S. government security personnel will be added to the staff in Baghdad; other staff will be temporarily relocated – both to our Consulate Generals in Basra and Erbil and to the Iraq Support Unit in Amman.”

“Overall, a substantial majority of the U.S. Embassy presence in Iraq will remain in place and the Embassy will be fully equipped to carry out its national security mission.”

In this video, Kurdish forces try to explain to a couple of Western tourists why they can’t drive through to Mosul, employing some grisly charades to explain that they’d end up dead if they went to the al-Qaeda-controlled city:

YouTube Preview Image

Read bullet | Comments »

Iraq Chaos: Enemies Must Be Defeated, Not Policed

Monday, June 16th, 2014 - by Walter Hudson

Iraq war vet J.R. Salzman expresses understandable frustration regarding Iraq’s collapse into chaos brought on by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

Salzman and so many others have been told for years that their sacrifices were offered to establish a free and orderly Iraq. My PJM colleague Austin Bay summarizes the conventional wisdom which has informed the effort when he writes:

The US has a vital interest in helping Iraqis create a stable, democratic state. Would-be isolationists will quickly rediscover that economic links bind the 21st century world, once they see the oil price hikes spurred by the battlefield successes of the [ISIS].

What if the Iraqis don’t want a stable, democratic state? What if they lack the philosophical and moral base upon which to establish it? Wouldn’t that largely explain why their nation descends into chaos without Americans there to impose order?

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

(Today’s Fightin Words podcast on this topic. 16:15 minutes long; 15.67 MB file size. Want to download instead of streaming? Right click here to download this show to your hard drive. Subscribe through iTunes or RSS feed.)

The interests of the United States are properly defined by the individual rights of its citizens. We have a right to defend our lives, our liberty, and our property. If ISIS presents a threat to those rights, they should be engaged as an enemy and utterly destroyed.

But that’s the old fashioned, pre-WWII, pre-UN way of looking at foreign policy. And it’s not very popular today. Day suggests:

To stabilize, Iraqis need confidence; a long-term US security presence inspires confidence. America kept a security “nightlight” in Germany and Japan for half a century.

Of course, Germany and Japan were first militarily defeated in total war, their cities and civilian populations devastated to the point of unconditional surrender. Unless we’re willing to first defeat our enemies, we can’t hope to police them.

Part of the problem is that Iraq doesn’t have a unified national identity. You can’t expect the natives to fight for something they don’t believe in. But that raises the question: if they don’t believe in it, why are we there? If it’s not to neutralize an objectively defined threat, then fifty years of more sacrifices like Salzman’s are hard to justify.

Read bullet | Comments »

Syrians Compare Obama Inaction to Clinton and Rwanda

Friday, June 13th, 2014 - by Bridget Johnson

The northwestern Syrian fig-and-olive-producing town of Kafranbel huddled together fairly early in the war and decided the best way to get their message to the outside world would be to pen signs in English, then spread them through the Internet and social media. As President Obama admitted today that the battle in Syria was spilling over to its neighbors, this recent sign they made is an especially damning editorial of his policies in the region.

Obamas Role

The townspeople also recently had a not-suitable-for-work message for Russian President Vladimir Putin:

Fuck you Putin

Read bullet | Comments »

Making Sense of the Meltdown in Iraq

Friday, June 13th, 2014 - by Austin Bay

STRATEGIC POLITICAL: The US has a vital interest in helping Iraqis create a stable, democratic state. Would-be isolationists will quickly rediscover that economic links bind the 21st century world, once they see the oil price hikes spurred by the battlefield successes of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also translated as the media-friendly acronym ISIS, for Islamic State in Iraq and Syria).

However, US interest in Iraq is not simply energy or economics — it is political example.  Iran’s dictatorship and various violent Islamic militant groups know that a successful Iraqi democracy would be fatal to them and to their goals.(1)  The US and Iraq must negotiate a new Status of Forces Agreement. To stabilize, Iraqis need confidence; a long-term US security presence inspires confidence. American kept a security “nightlight” in Germany and Japan for half a century.(2)

OPERATIONAL MILITARY: Iraqi forces need US airpower, now. They need US special operations forces (SOF) teams to coordinate air strikes and tap US intelligence assets. First, target ISIL’s truck-borne flying columns. Air attacks devastate light vehicles in the open, and northwestern Iraq is open.  The US has US Navy carrier aircraft within range; so is NATO’s huge Incirlik air base.

The Iraqi Army claims that it stalled an ISIL column near Tikrit. With only 4,000 fighters, ISIL cannot fight an attrition battle. With US airpower providing an immense firepower advantage, Iraqi forces can kill the stalled ISIL column, and kill it quickly.

(1) In early 2004 US intelligence intercepted a letter from Iraq-based terrorist commander Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to his al-Qaida superiors. Zaraqwi wrote: When “the sons of this land (Iraq) will be the authority … this is the democracy. We will have no pretexts (i.e., for waging a terror war).” Anticipating strategic defeat, Zarqawi concluded his only option igniting a “sectarian war” in Iraq by waging a relentless terror war on Iraqi Shias. He believed this would “rally the Sunni Arabs” to his cause.

YouTube videos of summary executions in Mosul and reports that ISIL is imposing harsh Sharia law in areas it controls suggest ISIL intends to pursue the same desperate stratagem: igniting a Shia-Sunni civil war to shred Iraq. Out of the chaos, ISIL will then create a radical Sunni Islamic state in northern Iraq.  However, the Kurds, Turks and Jordanians won’t let it endure, nor will the Israelis. Though the Iranians will use the chaos to their advantage, they have no interest in a radical militant Sunni state on the border of the Syrian client. However, the best outcome is to kill the ISIL “caliphate” and kill it in a spectacular fashion.

(2) The Iraqi Army of 2008 was an increasingly capable force; the Operation Knights Charge in Basra was a highly successful Iraqi-planned and led attack. However, since US forces withdrew in 2011, cronyism and corruption have undermined Iraq’s military forces. Yes, Nouri al-Maliki bears the blame. Crooked armies are brittle armies; Mosul demonstrates that. Stabilizing Iraq means penalizing rule by whim (or cronies) while nurturing and strengthening the institutional Rule of Law.  An extended US security presence not only gives democratic political elements protection, it provides them with an on-the-ground Rule of Law institution to emulate.

Read bullet | 40 Comments »

Can we expect a Vietnam style helicopter rooftop evacuation at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad?

Friday, June 13th, 2014 - by Myra Adams


With the terrifying news out of Iraq that the Islamist militants are vowing to capture Baghdad, is it only a matter of time before the U.S. Embassy will be evacuated and abandoned?

Should we expect to see iconic images like this rooftop evacuation from the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, Vietnam in 1975?










Or, does our 104 acre compound/fortress U.S. Embassy in Baghdad,  “the biggest and most expensive in the world” already have landing lawns so rooftop evacuations will not be necessary?

Credit: Getty

U.S. Embassy in Baghdad     Credit: Getty


If the U.S. is forced to evacuate, tell your children that this was when our nation officially lost the War on Terror.

But have no fear! Our Commander in Chief is totally engaged for today he is visiting an Indian Reservation in North Dakota. Is he there to gather support to change the name of the Washington Redskins?  Surely, THAT is a crisis he can handle.

Apparently, the possibility of our embassy being overrun is not that dire because after visiting the Reservation, President Obama and the First Lady have some swanky reservations of their own!  This time in ritzy Palm Springs, CA. There they will engage the locals in a little fundraising and most likely, a few rounds of golf in the golf capital of the Golden State.

According to the local Desert Sun:

“The couple are scheduled to arrive at the Palm Springs International Airport on Friday for a four-day visit. The local news also reported, “The couple’s destination within the valley remained a mystery Thursday.”

Let us hope that over the next four days, images of Obama golfing in Palm Springs will not appear along side video of American Embassy personnel hurriedly boarding aircraft while clutching boxes of classified material.

THAT might just ruin his peaceful Palm Springs weekend and interrupt strolls along Bob Hope and Frank Sinatra Drive.




Read bullet | 7 Comments »

House Armed Services Chairman Won’t Back ‘One-Shot Strike That Looks Good for the Camera’

Friday, June 13th, 2014 - by Bridget Johnson

Blasting an AWOL Iraq strategy from the White House, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) said he will not support “a one-shot strike that looks good for the cameras but has no enduring effect.”

“All Americans should be gravely concerned by the turn of events in Iraq. What once had the potential to be a secular democratic foothold in a vital region has spiraled into chaos and bloodshed,” McKeon said in a statement. “In the near term, I am most concerned about the security of the thousands of dedicated Americans working in Iraq. The President must make their safety his first concern.”

“In the longer term, it is clear that we need a new strategy in Iraq and across the Middle East,” he continued. “The president had hoped that as America stepped back from the world, other responsible actors would step forward to provide stability. That hasn’t worked. It isn’t going to work. Our vacillation and inaction in Syira, abandonment of Iraq, politically driven withdrawal from Afghanistan, and senseless cuts to national security resources has allowed the resurrection of a transnational terrorist threat.”

“These extremists now have unprecedented wealth, technology, and a safe haven from which to launch attacks on the United States. They must be stopped.”

However, McKeon stressed, “the White House has a history of ‘considering all options’ while choosing none.”

“There are no quick fix solutions to this crisis …what is needed here is a new strategy for our regional engagement, adequate resourcing of our national security enterprise, and renewed American leadership,” he said. “The president should also ask himself if his White House National Security team is equal to the crisis at hand. I don’t believe they are.”

Read bullet | Comments »

Bergdahl in San Antonio, Enters Phase III Reintegration

Friday, June 13th, 2014 - by Bridget Johnson

Former Taliban captive Bowe Bergdahl touched down in the United States today, two weeks after five Guantanamo prisoners were traded for the 28-year-old’s release.

“Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl has arrived at the Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio. While there, he will continue the next phase of his reintegration process. There is no timeline for this process,” said Pentagon press secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby. “Our focus remains on his health and well-being. Secretary Hagel is confident that the Army will continue to ensure that Sgt. Bergdahl receives the care, time and space he needs to complete his recovery and reintegration.”

A statement issued a few hours later by the Army said arrived at the San Antonio Military Medical Facility on Fort Sam Houston early this morning “where he will undergo Phase III reintegration.”

“U.S. Army South is the lead command for reintegration and will ensure Sgt. Bergdahl receives the necessary care, time and space to complete the process. Among other components of this phase, Sgt. Bergdahl will continue to receive medical treatment and debriefings,” the Army said.

“Following Sgt. Bergdahl’s reintegration, the Army will continue its comprehensive review into the circumstances of his disappearance and captivity.”

A senior defense official last week described the reintegration phases to reporters.

“Phase one encompasses the process of transporting the recovered individual to a safe area, to conduct initial medical assessment and time-sensitive debriefings. Phase one will end with the recovered individual being returned to duty or recommended for phase two reintegration,” the official said. “Phase two encompasses the transition from phase one to a theater treatment and processing facility, and further SERE and intelligence debriefings and decompression. Phase two will end with the recovered individual being released to duty or recommended for phase three reintegration.”

“Phase three reintegration begins with the transition of the recovered individual to a phase three team of the appropriate service. The phases do not have a prescribed time limit, and they depend on the needs of the recovered individual in coordination with the concerns of the service and the combatant commanders.”

A Defense Department psychologist said in that briefing that phase three is generally the point for “family unification.”

“Phase one is usually around 48 hours, but has gone as long as 96. Phase two is usually a minimum of five days, has gone as long as three weeks. And phase three has been as short as 24 hours and as long as five years,” the psychologist added.

Read bullet | 8 Comments »

Can We, And Should We, Do Anything About the Islamist Capture of Iraq?

Thursday, June 12th, 2014 - by Bryan Preston

The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, continues its march toward Baghdad. But what does ISIS actually want? Is it capable of holding the territory that it is capturing? What are its aims? What are the consequences if it succeeds in toppling Iraq’s current, secular, government?

Iraq has 10% of the world’s oil supplies. In economic terms alone, if an Islamist terrorist government with al Qaeda’s ideology captures Iraq, the consequences will be serious.

But according to the New York Times, the Obama administration has already ruled out any intervention on Iraq’s behalf, on any scale.

As the threat from Sunni militants in western Iraq escalated last month, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki secretly asked the Obama administration to consider carrying out airstrikes against extremist staging areas, according to Iraqi and American officials.

But Iraq’s appeals for a military response have so far been rebuffed by the White House, which has been reluctant to open a new chapter in a conflict that President Obama has insisted was over when the United States withdrew the last of its forces from Iraq in 2011.

That stubbornness may prove to be very costly. Blogs of War lays out what the US might be able to do short of putting any American troops back into Iraq.

What the United States can do is provide very limited air/drone support, intelligence support, diplomatic support, and coordination with the regional teams who would actually have boots on the ground. Assorted tools from the covert war playbook would likely be enough to make life difficult for ISIS. And frankly, that is all that the United States can, or should, do. We do not need to eradicate them in bloody urban combat or commit massive development resources to a dysfunctional Iraqi government. However, we do need to find a way to check the momentum of a rapidly expanding threat before it becomes an exponentially bigger problem. All military options are ugly, and far from a permanent solution, but engaging ISIS quickly might stave off an absolute collapse of the country.

Collapse isn’t the only risk. A full ISIS takeover is a grim possibility. TIME magazine says that what ISIS really wants is what its predecessor, al Qaeda, wanted: a restoration of the Islamic caliphate.

…if ISIS can in fact hold the area it has overrun, it may well be able to fulfill its stated mission of restoring the Caliphate, the governing structure for the Sunni Muslim world that inherited authority from the Prophet Mohammed. “This is of great significance,” according to an assessment released Wednesday by The Soufan Group, a private security company. A restored Caliphate will attract “many more disaffected young people … from all over the Muslim world, especially the Middle East, lured by nostalgia for al-Khulafa al-Islamiya (the Islamic Caliphate), which remains a potent motivator for Sunni extremists.”

Restoring the Caliphate was the stated goal of Osama bin Laden in creating al-Qaeda, but the terror group has never operated militarily. “It’s ISIS that will build the Caliphate, not al-Qaeda,” says al-Tamimi.

Guess who would be a modern caliphate’s lionized and revered founding father? Besides Barack Obama, who is at least passively enabling all this, Osama bin Laden would get his face on the new caliphate’s currency.

A caliphate would out-Islam even Iran’s Islamic Revolution. It would provide a direct challenge to every secular government in every Islamic country in the Middle East. It would unite millions of Muslims in one of the caliphate’s ultimate goals — the destruction of Israel in order to recapture the Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem. A caliphate would also provide a threat to Shiites, and might trigger a much wider Islamic civil war, on a more or less global scale.

US power would be severely weakened in all this. In fact, it already is. Iran is already shipping oil to the Syrian government, in open violation of US and international sanctions against Assad. The Obama administration doesn’t seem to care.

Read bullet | 10 Comments »

Jihadis Display ‘Power of Islam’ on Donkey Victims

Wednesday, June 11th, 2014 - by Raymond Ibrahim

Very graphic videos recently appeared on Arabic-language media portraying Islamic jihadis in Syria slaughtering donkeys in order to consume them.

The main point made by some of these websites is that the jihadis are hypocrites for (again) violating Islamic law, which bans the eating of domesticated donkeys.

In the words of a fatwa, or Islamic decree, titled “Is it permissible to eat donkey meat?”

Praise be to Allaah.

It is permissible to eat the meat of onagers (“wild donkeys”) and it is haraam [forbidden] to eat the meat of domesticated donkeys. The first is permitted because of the report narrated by al-Bukhaari (5492) and Muslim (1196) from Abu Qataadah (may Allaah be pleased with him) who hunted an onager and brought a piece of it to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and he ate some of it, and he said to his companions: “It is halaal [permissible], eat it.”

With regard to domesticated donkeys, their meat was permitted at first, then the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) declared it to be haraam [forbidden] on the day of Khaybar.

Questions of wild or domesticated aside—and the donkeys do appear to be domesticated—this is yet another example of the fact that, for those waging jihad to empower Allah’s word, dispensations are always available.

As discussed here, it is precisely because the strictures of Islamic law are relaxed for the jihadi—often permitting the indulgence of depraved behavior—that the jihad has always been an appealing option.

While killing animals for consumption is commonplace, what is notable about these videos is the “supremacist” demeanor of the jihadis towards the donkeys—as if the animals are also “infidels” to be treated with contempt and brutality.

Watching them slaughter the donkeys is like watching them slaughter human “infidels”—with all the triumphant theatrics.

In one video, “Allahu Akbar!” is heard while a donkey is being decapitated.

Jihadis habitually cry “Allahu Akbar” (Islam’ supremacist war-cry, which literally means Allah is “greater”) whenever striking down infidels—especially when ceremoniously beheading them.

But why say it while slaughtering a donkey—an animal—for consumption?…Keep reading

Read bullet | 5 Comments »