Filed under: Education, Foreign Policy, Free Markets, Freedom, History, Iran, Iraq, Islam, Middle East, National Security, Syria, The United States | Tags: Islamic State, Muslim Outreach, The Slave Trade
I started giving quizzes to my juniors and seniors. I gave them a ten-question American history test… just to see where they are. The vast majority of my students – I’m talking nine out of ten, in every single class, for seven consecutive years – they have no idea that slavery existed anywhere in the world before the United States. Moses, Pharaoh, they know none of it. They’re 100% convinced that slavery is a uniquely American invention… How do you give an adequate view of history and culture to kids when that’s what they think of their own country – that America invented slavery? That’s all they know.
Today, The Islamic State, in a digression from their usual tirades against Christians, claimed in the latest issue of their propaganda magazine Dabiq that if Muslims had been running things in countries like the United States, “the lucrative African slave trade would have continued, supporting a strong economy.”
As usual, the Islamic State supports its position with theological arguments, suggesting that Allah is pleased with slavery, as long as the slaves are infidels.
“The Islamic leadership would not have bypassed Allah’s permission to sell captured pagan humans, to teach them, and to convert them, as they worked hard for their masters in building a beautiful country,” the article reads.
Trading in black African slaves, the magazine notes, would not be done for racial reasons but religious ones.
Along with African slavery, the IS authors said that “if it were Muslims instead of Christians who had fought the Japanese ad Vietnamese or invaded the lands of the Native Americans, there would have been no regrets in killing and enslaving those therein.”
This charming diatribe from ISIS calls to mind Victor Davis Hanson’s column from last week: “The Dream of Muslim Outreach Has Become a Nightmare”
When President Obama entered office, he dreamed that his hope-and-change messaging and his references to his familial Islamic roots would win over the Muslim world. The soon-to-be Nobel Peace Prize laureate would make the U.S. liked in the Middle East. Then, terrorism would decrease. …
The new message of the Obama administration was that the Islamic world was understandably hostile because of what America had done rather than what it represented.
Accordingly, all mention of radical Islam, and even the word “terrorism,” was airbrushed from the new administration’s vocabulary. Words to describe terrorism or the fight against it were replaced by embarrassing euphemisms like “overseas contingency operations,” “man-caused disaster,” and “workplace violence.”
In apology tours and mythological speeches, Obama exaggerated Islamic history as often as he critiqued America. He backed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. He pushed America away from Israel, appeased Iran, and tried to piggyback on the Arab Spring by bombing Libya. He even lectured Christians on their past pathologies dating back to the Crusades. (Do read the whole thing)
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Foreign Policy, Free Markets, Freedom, Immigration, Intelligence, Islam, Media Bias, Middle East, National Security, Politics, Syria, Terrorism | Tags: Free Societies, Migrants in Vast Numbers, Refugees of Convenience
What image comes to mind when you hear the term “refugees?” I think of refugees fleeing on foot with their worldly goods in wheelbarrows or handcarts before the advance or the Russian armies. Old movies, I guess, or photographs from World War II history books. I’d bet that’s the image Angela Merkel has as well, perhaps with some French refugees fleeing the Wehrmacht for a modicum of guilt. Something like that was surely in her mind when she invited “refugees” from the war in Syria.
According to a post at Zero Hedge, “where in the past refugees were assumed to be fleeing turmoil — war, political oppression, religious persecution, or even some major natural disaster — in most cases restricted to a locale region or nation; such clarity is no longer evident. To a great extent, today’s refugees are either refugees-of-convenience, solely seeking a better economic life; or hybrid refugees, where economics plays a major role, if parasitic to turmoil, in their decision to flee their native lands.”
The flood of refugees, or migrants, were at first welcomed with open arms and compassion, but it soon appeared that they were not only not that grateful, but resentful and there was a notable clash of civilizations. The people for the most part, were quicker to realize what was happening than their governments. A clash of civilizations was a topic that was considered off limits. But there are deep divisions between the secular democracies and a significant number of its Muslim community. There has been significant recruiting by strains of Islam that are linked to terrorism.
- July 26th — Priest executed while serving mass.
- July 26th — Doctor shot in Berlin
- July 24th — Machete -wielder kills woman in Reutlingen
- July 24th —Bomber kills self, injures 15 in Ansback
- July 22nd — Shooting rampage in Munich 9 dead
- July 18th — man with axe injures 5 near Wurzburg
- July 14th — Truck attack in Nice kills 84
- March 22nd — Bombers kill 32 in Brussels
- Nov. 13th — Gunmen and bombers kill 130 in Paris
From Zero Hedge: “How George Soros Singlehandedly Created The European Refugee Crisis — And Why” A short position in troubled Deutsche Bank and betting against the S&P via a 2.1-million-share put option on the SPDR S&P 500 ETF. Then a $264 million position is Barrick Gold, whose share price jumped over 14% since Brexit.”
Here’s another headline, this time from the Daily Caller: “Obama Administration Joint Effort With Corporations Can Resettle Refugees Limitlessly” “The White House announced last week that it is launching a “Call to Action” asking private businesses to help with the resettlement of refugees. This could be done without regard to the government cap of 85,000 total refugees, including 10,000 Syrian refugees, in 2016.” Let’s find a way around a government cap, of course.
Also from the Daily Caller “After Importing Thousands of Refugees, Canadians now Say Muslim Immigrants have ‘Fundamentally Different Values’ ” Eventually you notice.
Bret Stephens at The Wall Street Journal in a series of articles has provided some of the most sensible commentary.
More important, Europeans will have to learn that powerlessness can be as corrupting as power—and much more dangerous. The storm of terror that is descending on Europe will not end in some new politics of inclusion, community outreach, more foreign aid or one of Mrs. Merkel’s diplomatic Rube Goldbergs. It will end in rivers of blood. Theirs or yours?
In all this, the best guide to how Europe can find its way to safety is the country it has spent the best part of the last 50 years lecturing and vilifying: Israel. For now, it’s the only country in the West that refuses to risk the safety of its citizens on someone else’s notion of human rights or altar of peace.
Europeans will no doubt look to Israel for tactical tips in the battle against terrorism—crowd management techniques and so on—but what they really need to learn from the Jewish state is the moral lesson. Namely, that identity can be a great preserver of liberty, and that free societies cannot survive through progressive accommodations to barbarians.
Filed under: Economics, Foreign Policy, History, Islam, Middle East, Military | Tags: Recep Tayip Erdogan, Turkey Aflame
Europe has, in general, thought of Turkey as their bulwark against the hordes of Islamic migrants (heavily infiltrated with ISIS fighters). The democratically elected president of Turkey, Recep Tayip Erdogan, has just been the subject of a military coup (while he was absent from the country) which failed. Many believe that it was not a real coup, but Erdogan’s own plot to dispose of future military coups, and confirm his preferred position of lifetime dictator of a radical Islamist state. That seems to be the customary and approved form of governance in the Islamist states of the Middle East. It does not bode well.
Erdogan is taking advantage of the coup crisis to justify a major crackdown on his enemies. He seems to have a prepared list, ready to go, of officers and judges who have already been arrested in the thousands, along with civic leaders, journalists, professors, and government employees. The government is calling on the people to protest in the streets, and encouraging jihadists and IS sympathizers to raid the homes of secular people beat them and kill them.
David P. Goldman, who also writes as Spengler, is expert in matters of demography and finance. He says that Turkey has built up a bubble of debt, financing consumption with debt. Consumer debt is now almost equal to total personal income in Turkey, compared to 20% here, which horrifies conservative economists. Turkey’s average interest rate as consumer debt, according to the central bank, is just under 17%. The birth rate for Turks is way down, while the birth rate for Kurdish Turks remains healthy—but they want to form their own country with Kurds from Syria and Iraq.
An article by Soner Cagaptay in the Wall Street Journal captures the dangerous moment in history for the Turkish nation:
In 2014, Mr. Erdogan, acceding to term limits, stepped down as prime minister and as the head of the AKP. He instead assumed the presidency—a formerly weak office that he has been steadily transforming. The coup gives Mr. Erdogan an excuse to press ahead with his plans to cobble together a parliamentary majority; he intends to amend Turkey’s Constitution and take over the posts of prime minister and AKP chairman in addition to being president.
This process, which would make Mr. Erdogan the most powerful person in Turkey since the country became a multiparty democracy in 1950, fits into his gradualist approach to consolidating power. At the same time, it presents a risk: In the two most recent elections, Mr. Erdogan’s AKP has maxed out at 49.5% support, and although the president’s popularity has risen since the coup, there is no guarantee that this bump will last until the next elections, which, depending on when Mr. Erdogan calls them, could be as late as next year.
The quickest path to power is Islamist revolution. Erdogan supporters are Islamists and jihadists and protesting in the streets. An Islamist counter-revolution would mean the loss of its NATO membership, exposing the country to neighboring enemies, including Russia. And an economic meltdown is not unlikely.
If Mr. Erdogan were to pump up religious fervor further, he could convert the religious counter-coup d’état into an Islamist counter-revolution, ending Turkey’s status as a secular democracy. Adding to the temptation is the fact that the military, divided and discredited in the public eye following the failed coup, is in no position to prevent a counterrevolution.
Filed under: Afghanistan, Democrat Corruption, Foreign Policy, Immigration, Intelligence, Iran, Iraq, Islam, Israel, Law, Media Bias, Middle East, Military, National Security, Politics, Progressivism, Statism, Syria, Terrorism, The United States | Tags: Iran's Intentions, Radical Islam, The Middle East
Why does Barack Obama refuse to utter the words “Radical Islam?” Why does the phrase in the First Amendment “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” which has a clear meaning, seem to prohibit our federal agencies from doing necessary background inquiries regarding those who appear to be radicalized Muslims? Major Nidal Hassan who fatally shot 13 people at Fort Hood and wounded more than 30 others was clearly observed to be radicalized and dangerous, but nobody would do anything about it because he was Muslim.
Omar Mateen was allowed to avoid serious investigation because he was a Muslim. He blamed his actions on Islamophobia. He talked a lot about how he wanted to kill people. Disney reported that Mateen and his wife were casing Disney World back in April. But real investigation stopped because he was a Muslim.
After the deadliest mass shooting in American history. President Obama was angry, impassioned — at Republicans? Huh? David Harsanyi notes the occasion at NRO: (Do read the whole thing)
“That’s the key,” they tell us,” Obama said, eviscerating the GOP. “We can’t beat ISIL unless we call them radical Islamists. What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change?
Victor Davis Hanson wrote about Orlando and “domestic terrorism:”
Most disturbing is the serial inability of the Obama administration — in this case as after the attacks at Fort Hood and in Boston and San Bernardino — even to name the culprits as radical Islamists. Major Hasan shouts “Allahu akbar!” and Omar Mateen calls 911 in mediis interfectis to boast of his ISIS affiliation — and yet the administration can still not utter the name of the catalyst of their attacks: radical Islam. It is hard to envision any clearer Islamist self-identification, other than name tags and uniforms. The Obama team seems to fear the unwelcome public responses to these repeated terrorist operations rather than seeing them as requisites for changing policies to prevent their recurrence.
The current Leftist seems to be consumed by the belief that Michelle Obama derived from her husband. “All of us are driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won’t do — that we have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be,” which seems to be derived from Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. They dream of an imagined world that is self-evidently superior to the existing order. Their world is consumed with the glorious future of which they dream and the current battle against the Right.
That leaves little time for reflection or study, so they rely heavily on leftist talking points that are handed down to the press and to Democratic spokesmen. That’s why there are always examples of the entire Democrat apparatus speaking of the same event in exactly the same words. Talking points. And they seem remarkably ill-informed.
Obama clearly was influenced by the years he spent in Muslim Indonesia before he was 10 years old, but there is no evidence that he is Muslim. Many of us believe that his much ballyhooed “Iran Deal” is an absolute disaster and a major danger to the United States, yet the president sees it as a great accomplishment. Why?
I believe he sees the Middle East in a domestic battle between Sunni and Shia for dominance, which we ignited — with the Invasion of Iraq — and made worse with our brutal treatment of the Iraqis, killing Muslims and destroying property. Obama’s closest advisor is Valerie Jarrett who was raised in Iran.
He regards Arab Muslims with their wealth and palaces and yachts as the problem, and the enlightened and educated Persians as a better class to control the Middle East. He believes we should turn the entire area over to the Iranians to manage. He thinks we have no business in the Middle East at all, and believes America should play a smaller role in the world, as just one among many nations. He sees the cries of the Ayatollah for “Death to Israel” and “Death to America” as some sort of rallying cry or public relations, but not anything that is meant seriously. He said, when he was trying to sell his Iran Deal to Americans, that he did not believe that Iran would ever use a nuclear weapon.
Obama, we are told, does not change his mind. Once he believes something, it is set in concrete. He was heavily influenced by Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian-American firebrand professor of Middle East studies at Columbia, and I assume Obama believes that Israel is the major problem in the Middle East. Obama’s great accomplishment was to create a “two-state solution”, and he is furious that he hasn’t been able to bring it about. Palestinians aren’t ready to stop trying to kill Israelis with rockets and stabbings and tunnels to attack Israelis in their homes, which is somewhat inclined to give the Israelis a jaundiced view of the fabled “Peace Process.”
I have no expertise in the Middle East, never been there, this is only what I have derived from my reading, but I do read a lot. When an enemy leads chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel,”and hangs citizens of his own country who disagree with him, I’m inclined to believe him. When they demand the ability to build nuclear plants that are clearly not needed to produce power, and everybody says they are developing nuclear weapons, I’m inclined to believe them. When they are pursing intercontinental ballistic missiles that could carry a nuclear weapon, I’m a more than a little skeptical about Mr. Obama’s Iran Deal. That’s why he won’t say “Radical Islam.”
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Democrat Corruption, Foreign Policy, Immigration, Intelligence, Iran, Iraq, Islam, Law, Military, National Security, Syria, Terrorism, The United States | Tags: CIA Director John Brennan, President Barack Obama, The Islamic State
Filed under: Afghanistan, Crime, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Foreign Policy, Free Markets, Freedom, Immigration, Iran, Islam, Law, National Security, Politics, Pop Culture, Progressivism, Syria, Terrorism | Tags: Major Nidal Hassan, Omar Mateen, What Really Matters
“Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away, Obama said. This is a political distraction”
He described the attacks on him as “yapping” and denounced ‘Politicians who Tweet and appear on cable news shows.”
Omar Mateen’s murder of 5o gays in an Orlando nightclub and wounding of as many others has a striking familiarity to the Fort Hood Massacre when Major Nidal Hassan, a U.S. Army Psychiatrist, fatally shot 13 people and wounded more than 30 others.
Both killers had been identified as dangerous and unhinged by those who worked with them. Their employers, the Army in the case of Nidal Hassan, and the Department of Homeland Security in the case of Omar Mateen knew that their conversation indicated “there’s something wrong with him” but the employer was unwilling to do anything about it because he was Muslim. Obama’s refusal to say the words “radical Islam,” or to allow anyone else to use the term, is so obvious to all that it approaches comedy. Obama’s instant reaction is always to find something wrong with American society, and to go for the standard Leftist approach: “We have to ban assault weapons“.
Weapons, from duded-up .22s to knives, baseball bats, pressure cookers, bomb-making materials, box-cutters, bows and arrows, are all inanimate objects, and require a human actor to put them to any use. The Left becomes hysterical about weapons, but refuses to deal with those who should not be allowed access to weapons. It’s the bad people, not the weapons.
If you remember, President Obama dismissed the Fort Hood massacre as “workplace violence.” They even went so far as to deny VA benefits to those who had been wounded, and refused to award purple hearts.No medals for “workplace violence.”
The Boston Massacre, the beheading in Oklahoma, and the stabbings at UC Merced had nothing to do with firearms.The attacks in Paris and Belgium took place in locales with the some of the strictest firearm regulations anywhere.
The President sets the agenda. For the last seven years, government officials have seen the suspicious activities of Muslims as the result of America’s Islamophobia, and our insults to the peaceful Muslim religion. Obama has taken the lead in encouraging Syrian refugees to settle in the United States.
A NASA Chief declared that one of the agency’s three primary missions was Muslim outreach. The director of National Intelligence called the Muslim Brotherhood “largely secular.” a top counterterrorism adviser praised jihad as a “legitimate tenet of Islam.” Obama has removed the requirement for new citizens to be available for national service if called upon. He said “We are to blame, not Islamic terrorism, for the Massacre.” He has said, in a video aimed at convincing migrants to pursue American citizenship that they didn’t need to assimilate. Government officials know who signs their paychecks.
I think that Obama lives in a different narrative, one in which he is the hero, wisely directing the American people in the way they should go. That it bears little relation to reality is beside the point. Because he is giving away citizenship to all comers, erasing the citizenship and border control laws, the newcomers will be reliable Democrat voters, and that’s what really matters, isn’t it?
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Economics, Foreign Policy, History, Iran, Iraq, Islam, Israel, National Security, Politics, Regulation, Terrorism, The United States | Tags: Deputy Nat'l Security Advisor Ben Rhodes, Michael Doran, President Barack Obama
The American people have been trying for eight years to understand Barack Obama and to grasp just what his aims are. Why is he doing what he is doing? Here are the pieces I have saved that I find somewhat enlightening. No, I don’t think Obama was born in Kenya, nor does he hate America, nor is he trying to destroy America. He just has some odd beliefs that guide his actions.
Richard Epstein, Professor of Law, fellow at the Hoover Institution had a conversation about Obama on Uncommon Knowledge, with Peter Robinson. Epstein knew Obama at the University of Chicago, and through his next door neighbor who was Obama’s best friend at the time. Posted in 2012. The insight that Obama does not change his mind, that his ideas are fixed in concrete is important.
Fast forward to the present and Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes as he explains the Iran Deal, and how they pushed it through by lying to the American people.
Michael Doran, in a widely praised article in Mosaic Magazine took on the task of explaining “Obama’s Secret Iran Strategy.”
And Elliott Abrams followed that up by explaining “What the President Thinks He’s Doing,” also in Mosaic Magazine, February 2015.
At ricochet, Herbert E. Meyer writes about “Obama’s Failed Experiment,” October 2, 2015.
Here’s Jeffrey Goldberg in a widely praised interview with President Obama on Syria and American Foreign Policy from The Atlantic, on June 12, 2016
And today, David Hazony, Editor of The Tower wrote about “The Mind of the President”
Obama is clearly a leftist radical who thinks that most of the problems of the world would be much less troublesome if the United States were not so involved with the world. We are the problem, in his mind. He emphasized that once again today. “We are to Blame, not Islamic terrorism, for the massacre,” by John Podhoretz. Podhoretz says we, once again, have an unmistakable indication that Obama finds it astonishingly easy to divorce himself from a reality he doesn’t like — the reality of the Islamist terror war against the United States and how it is moving to our shores in the form of lone-wolf attacks.
He called it “terror,” which it is. But using the word “terror” without a limiting and defining adjective is like a doctor calling a disease “cancer” without making note of the affected area of the body — because if he doesn’t know where the cancer is and what form it takes, he cannot attack it effectively and seek to extirpate it.
So determined is the president to avoid the subject of Islamist, ISIS-inspired or ISIS-directed terrorism that he concluded his remarks with an astonishing insistence that “we need the strength and courage to change” our attitudes toward the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community.
Some of these pieces are long, but all are deeply informative. Their intent is not to attack the President, but to explore his mind. We are told that he is the most brilliant of all of our presidents, which I seriously doubt. But how can this man, who has taken an oath to protect and defend the American people and the Constitution of the United States possibly view the bloody, senseless massacre in an Orlando night club and announce primly that “We are to blame, not Islamic terrorism, for the massacre.” He has no understanding of the office he holds, none at all.