Omar Mateen unleashes terror in Orlando, Twitter mob blames Christians, NRA

Omar Mateen

Omar Mateen of St. Lucie County, Fla., massacred 50 people and wounded 53 others at a gay nightclub in Orlando on Saturday. The St. Lucie County man had pledged allegiance to the Islamic State group and was previously investigated by the FBI. Those are the kind of details that rightly prompt discussions on homeland security and radical Islamic terrorism in objective circles.

On Twitter, however, the online mobs have directed their rage and anger at other targets: Christians and the National Rifle Association. Seriously.

Chase Strangio Orlando terror tweet

Yes, that’s right, a guy who pledged allegiance to ISIS before unleashing a terror attack like those in Paris or Brussels was somehow driven by “the Christian Right” to slaughter gay people — according to the Twitter mob.

Scott Weiner Orlando terror tweet

Scott Wiener, a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, wants everyone to know that “Radical Christianity more than holds its own” when compared to the Islamic terrorists throwing gay men off tall buildings in Syria or mowing down innocent civilians around the world.

Islamic State gay execution

Finally, the Orlando-terror Twitter stream was filled with individuals like Deni Rosenberg, who want the world to believe that “good guys” with guns would not have saved countless lives inside Pulse Nightclub — despite the fact that it took a S.W.A.T. team (i.e., good guys with guns), to end the bloody standoff.

Deni Rosenberg Orlando tweet

Every time Islamic radicals kill civilians in western countries, the response by politically-correct activists is to proclaim, “this has nothing to do with Islam” — while simultaneously sliming Christians and gun-owners as the catalyst for terror. Oddly enough, these very same activists wonder why presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is popular with millions of Americans.

Pulse Attack CNN screenshot

If Donald Trump is elected the 45th president of the United States, then pollsters should ask about this moment in history. Millions of voters’ decision will be galvanized within the next week, and it is my opinion (as a Giant Meteor of Death supporter) that a cacophony of politically-correct platitudes will push them into Mr. Trump’s camp.

Giant Meteor 2016

Editor’s Note:

Regular readers know that this blog has been nominated for a Hugo Award. This morning I saw a trackback in my WordPress stats to one voter’s critique of my writing. I fell into a “No Award” category based on my “weaker” political fare. An example of my “weaker” efforts was a Dec. 12, 2015, post that warned of “Shariah Police” legally patrolling the streets of Germany — and how Christianity differs from Islam. (I’m not sure how my thoughts on Shariah law have anything to do with The Amazing Spider-Man, but I digress.)

“Ernst’s more political/social commentary posts are much weaker but the guy is saddled with having to defend poorly thought out positions,’ the writer said. “Overall, a bit middling with high variability. There are many better writers out there but as there is a danger of political bias on my part leading me to undervalue the rest of his writing I strongly considered putting him above No Award. However, even the best of his writing just isn’t up to award-worthy.”

Here is my “poorly thought out position” from that post: Shariah Law is dangerous (e.g., it allows for the execution of gay people, domestic terrorism, etc.), and 2 million refugees from the Middle East and North Africa will pose significant security problems for German authorities in the years to come.

Let me ask my Magic 8 Ball if “political bias” was at play with that “No Award” vote.

Answer: “As I see it, yes.”

Advertisements

‘Islamophobia’ lecture follows Brussels terror attack

Brussels Belgium terror attack

Anyone who wants further evidence that Western Civilization is in its death throes should have been on Twitter Tuesday morning. The smoke had not yet cleared after attacks by the Islamic State group in Brussels, Belgium, when “Islamophobia” was trending on the social media platform.

Kiran Mazumdar Shaw Belgium terror

BHH Brussels tweet

Somewhere in a subway station in Brussels a man was trying to keep his entrails from spilling out into broken glass after an Islamic terror attack, and women like Kiran Mazumdar Shaw and “@localblacktivist” all over the world were literally worrying about “Islamophobia.”

CNN reported Tuesday:

Three explosions that ripped through the Belgian capital of Brussels on Tuesday killed at least 26 people and wounded 130 more, according to Belgian media, and raised the reality of terror once again in the heart of Europe.

“We were fearing terrorist attacks, and that has now happened,” Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel told reporters.

Belgian federal Prosecutor Frederic Van Leeuw said it was too soon to know exactly how many people died in the bombings. Yet the Brussels Metro Authority reported that 15 died and 55 were wounded in the subway station blast. And Belgian media report at least 11 more people were killed in the two blasts in the Brussels Airport departure hall.

People wonder why someone like Donald Trump is popular, but it only takes a few minutes of watching world leaders react to Islamic terror attacks to understand his support.

Take, for instance, President Obama’s reaction to the Islamic terror attack in San Bernardino, California, last year. In a diplomatic way, Mr. Obama accused the media of spreading “Islamophobia” for ratings.

The president told CNN on Dec. 22, 2015;

“If you’ve been watching television for the last month, all you have been seeing, all you have been hearing about is these guys with masks or black flags who are potentially coming to get you,” Obama said Monday, CNN reported. Look, the media is pursuing ratings. This is a legitimate news story. I think that, you know, it’s up to the media to make a determination about how they want to cover things.”

The reason why news stories about Islamic terrorists “coming to get” westerners exist is because ISIS, al Qaida, and their ideological allies do precisely that. That isn’t a ratings grab — that is reality. We should never be paralyzed by fear, but we shouldn’t sacrifice honesty at the alter of political correctness, either.

Brussels Attack

Tuesday’s attack in Brussels comes less than six months after the Nov. 13, 2015, massacre in Paris, France, that killed 130 and wounded countless others. If this is what “contained” looks like — as Mr. Obama infamously said at the time — it is safe to say that world “leaders” are not doing their job.

Obama, delusional, blames media for ISIS fears

Obama on media CNN screenshot

President Obama gave an interview with National Public Radio before heading off for vacation that should send chills down the spine of anyone who cares about national security. The president blamed the media for Americans’ fears of the Islamic State group instead of a.) the Dec. 2 terror attack in California, the deadliest on U.S. soil since 9/11, b.) the resiliency of ISIS, and c.) an aimless “strategy” to defeat the terror group.

“If you’ve been watching television for the last month, all you have been seeing, all you have been hearing about is these guys with masks or black flags who are potentially coming to get you,” Obama said Monday, CNN reported. Look, the media is pursuing ratings. This is a legitimate news story. I think that, you know, it’s up to the media to make a determination about how they want to cover things.”

How delusional does a man have to be to question media coverage of a terror group only weeks after 14 Americans were slaughtered in San Bernardino by its supporters?

How tone-deaf does a man have to be to question media  coverage of a terror group just weeks after it killed 130 during an attack inside Paris, France?

To add insult to injury,  Abdirizak Mohamed Warsame, 20, was arrested in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on Dec. 9 and charged with trying to join ISIS. He is the 10th Twin Cities resident facing such charges.

The president’s comments also come in the middle of a world-wide refugee crisis fueled by the U.S.-led coalition’s failure to destroy ISIS in Iraq, Syria, and parts of North Africa. Millions of people are scattered across the globe, ISIS explicitly says it wants to use the chaos to filter its members into western nations, and Mr. Obama wonders why networks are covering the story.

In short, Mr. Obama’s comments can be translated: “Can’t you guys just cover Steve Harvey screwing up the 2015 Miss Universe pageant? You’ll get ratings and protect my reputation at the same time! Come on, what do you say? You just need to cover for me one more year and I’ll be out of here.”

Steve Harvey ABC screenshot

The president did everything within his power to ignore the Middle East since 2008. He believed his own hype — that the world’s terrorism-related ills could primarily be traced by to George W. Bush — and in doing so he allowed al Qaeda’s mutation to thrive and grow.

The fear Americans have of ISIS is a rational response to a reality that Mr. Obama helped create. If the president is unhappy with news coverage now, then he should not have dismissed ISIS as a “JV” team on Jan. 27, 2014.

French father tells son ‘flowers’ stop terror; ISIS school hands kids guns

A French father tells his young child that “flowers” can protect him from the Islamic State group. A teacher at a school run by ISIL hands children guns and instructs them to kill infidels.

Question: At what point does a man’s “peace at any cost” rhetoric become delusional, dangerous, and downright insulting to those who provide for the common defense?

French father flowersFrench father flowers 2French father flowers 3French flowers.jpgISIS Afghanistan schoolISIS Afghanistan infidel

The first interview came from Le Petit Journal. The second story comes from Frontline PBS’ “ISIS in Afghanistan.” In both cases, however, we see men at the far ends of an ideological spectrum.

In the case of the French father mourning last Friday’s terror attacks in Paris, he does a disservice to the child by inculcating a worldview that flat-out rejects the need for those who put their lives on the line to secure peace.

French SWAT doors

The death count in France stands at 129. How many more would have died if brave S.W.A.T. teams weren’t willing to charge into a room with men unloading AK-47s?

Police didn’t storm into the Bataclan concert hall with flowers — they went in with armor and their own weapons.

It is possible to ease a scared child’s mind without filling it with symbolic messages John Lennon would cheer after an acid trip.

Whether America and its allies want to admit it or not, we are in a clash of civilizations. World history is littered with lawlessness and tyranny. Western Civilization helped spark a period of time where universal human rights and the rule of law actually mattered. Freedom and liberty were never preserved by men with flowers because we live in a fallen world, and that is not about to change in the wake of the Paris terror attacks.

In order to maintain history’s few outposts of freedom, we will need to raise men and women who are up to task. Teaching children there is nothing worth fighting and dying for is a surefire recipe for failure.

Obama tells Muslim scholars they aren’t Islamic; jihadis laugh, go back to growing caliphate

Bakr alBaghdadiThe Obama administration would do itself a huge favor if it would pass out copies of Graeme Wood’s most recent piece for The Atlantic, “What ISIS Really Wants,” to all of its staff. At a time when the commander in chief can say with a straight face that the Islamic State group is not Islamic and State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf publicly focuses on getting terrorists better job prospects, it is a must-read.

Mr. Wood writes:

Many refuse to believe that this group is as devout as it claims to be, or as backward-looking or apocalyptic as its actions and statements suggest.

Their skepticism is comprehensible. In the past, Westerners who accused Muslims of blindly following ancient scriptures came to deserved grief from academics—notably the late Edward Said—who pointed out that calling Muslims “ancient” was usually just another way to denigrate them. Look instead, these scholars urged, to the conditions in which these ideologies arose—the bad governance, the shifting social mores, the humiliation of living in lands valued only for their oil.

Without acknowledgment of these factors, no explanation of the rise of the Islamic State could be complete. But focusing on them to the exclusion of ideology reflects another kind of Western bias: that if religious ideology doesn’t matter much in Washington or Berlin, surely it must be equally irrelevant in Raqqa or Mosul. When a masked executioner says Allahu akbar while beheading an apostate, sometimes he’s doing so for religious reasons.

This is an incredibly important point. The leadership of the Islamic State is not interested in merely acquiring power for the sake of acquiring power — its quest is directly tied to a serious reading of the Koran that can be debated, but not dismissed.

Mr. Wood continues:

Muslims can say that slavery is not legitimate now, and that crucifixion is wrong at this historical juncture. Many say precisely this. But they cannot condemn slavery or crucifixion outright without contradicting the Koran and the example of the Prophet. “The only principled ground that the Islamic State’s opponents could take is to say that certain core texts and traditional teachings of Islam are no longer valid,” Bernard Haykel says. That really would be an act of apostasy.

The Islamic State’s ideology exerts powerful sway over a certain subset of the population. Life’s hypocrisies and inconsistencies vanish in its face. Musa Cerantonio and the Salafis I met in London are unstumpable: no question I posed left them stuttering. They lectured me garrulously and, if one accepts their premises, convincingly. To call them un-Islamic appears, to me, to invite them into an argument that they would win. If they had been froth-spewing maniacs, I might be able to predict that their movement would burn out as the psychopaths detonated themselves or became drone-splats, one by one. But these men spoke with an academic precision that put me in mind of a good graduate seminar. I even enjoyed their company, and that frightened me as much as anything else.

Mr. Wood nails it again when he observes their “academic precision.” For his piece he also interviewed London’s radical cleric Anjem Choudary, accurately articulating many of my own opinions on the man. Say what you will about Mr. Choudary, but he is not stupid and he is not psychotic. To say that he and his ideological allies are not “Islamic” is ludicrous and invites policy makers to embrace doomed strategies for dealing with them.

Mr. Wood offers sage advice to Mr. Obama when he says:

Western officials would probably do best to refrain from weighing in on matters of Islamic theological debate altogether. Barack Obama himself drifted into takfiri waters when he claimed that the Islamic State was “not Islamic”—the irony being that he, as the non-Muslim son of a Muslim, may himself be classified as an apostate, and yet is now practicing takfir against Muslims. Non-Muslims’ practicing takfir elicits chuckles from jihadists (“Like a pig covered in feces giving hygiene advice to others,” one tweeted).

When a U.S. president tells the American people not to take seriously the religious motivations of men who now control a land mass the size of the United Kingdom — in the heart of the Middle East — he is doing the free world a grave disservice.

Here is what I wrote Feb. 9:

It seems much more likely that Islamic State will publicly cheer on any “lone wolf” attacks that may occur in the U.S. in the next few years while privately amassing more wealth and allocating resources to grow its nascent caliphate in the Middle East.

Here is what Mr. Wood said for his March article:

A few “lone wolf” supporters of the Islamic State have attacked Western targets, and more attacks will come. But most of the attackers have been frustrated amateurs, unable to immigrate to the caliphate because of confiscated passports or other problems. Even if the Islamic State cheers these attacks—and it does in its propaganda—it hasn’t yet planned and financed one. (The Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris in January was principally an al‑Qaeda operation.) During his visit to Mosul in December, Jürgen Todenhöfer interviewed a portly German jihadist and asked whether any of his comrades had returned to Europe to carry out attacks. The jihadist seemed to regard returnees not as soldiers but as dropouts. “The fact is that the returnees from the Islamic State should repent from their return,” he said. “I hope they review their religion.”

Question: Why are we both coming to similar conclusions?

Answer: Because both of us don’t go around deluding ourselves that a lack of good office jobs is anywhere close to the primary driver for Islamic State recruitment. Taking these men and their interpretation of the Koran seriously yields the kind of information policymakers need to make sound decisions; telling them that the Islamic State group is not Islamic is a recipe for disaster.

If you get a chance, take the time to read “What ISIS Really Wants.” Mr. Wood’s piece for The Atlantic is superb. Unfortunately, the can’t same be said for the Obama administration’s attempts to deal with Islamic terrorists around the globe.

Gen. Dempsey to Obama: You might need to use ground troops if this coalition stinks

Chuck Hagel, Martin DempseyArmy Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke before the Senate Armed Services Committees on Tuesday, telling officials that if coalition partners don’t deal with the Islamic State group’s operations in Iraq, then he would not hesitate to say what President Obama doesn’t want to hear: “Send in the ground troops.”

“To be clear, if we reach the point where I believe our advisers should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific ISIL targets, I will recommend that to the president,” the general told the committees, the Associated Press reported Tuesday. He added that his recommendation, “may include the use of ground forces.”

One only needs to look Syria to realize that reliable ground troops — by someone — will be necessary to deal with Islamic State.

Reuters reported Tuesday:

Islamic State has gone underground in its Syrian stronghold since President Barack Obama authorized U.S. air strikes on the group in Syria, disappearing from the streets, redeploying weapons and fighters, and cutting down its media exposure.

In the city of Raqqa, 450 km (280 miles) northeast of Damascus, residents say Islamic State has been moving equipment every day since Obama signaled on Sept. 11 that air attacks on its forces could be expanded from Iraq to Syria. …

Facing U.S. air strikes in Iraq, Islamic State fighters abandoned heavy weaponry that made them easy targets and tried to blend into civilian areas. In anticipation of similar raids in Syria, the group may already be doing the same.

In Raqqa, the group has evacuated buildings it was using as offices, redeployed its heavy weaponry, and moved fighters’ families out of the city.

“They are trying to keep on the move,” said one Raqqa resident, communicating via the Internet and speaking on condition of anonymity because of safety fears. “They have sleeper cells everywhere,” he added.

Anyone who peddles the idea that days of precision airstrikes on Islamic State convoys, parades and gathering places will “destroy” the terrorist group is a fool. For over three years the president did everything he could to ignore its rise by “leading from behind.” He tried to wash away his own “red line” in Syria and then allow others in the region to handle the civil war their own way. He opted to play a passive role when the world needed leadership, and contrary to the logic regularly espoused by Code Pink, the threat metastasized.

The men at the top of the Islamic State food chain are smart. Given that they have assets in Syria in Iraq — and Obama has ruled out using ground troops — the logical course of action for them is to go underground. Yes, it will slow their advance, but who cares? They already have access to millions of dollars in oil money a day, control main roadways and financial centers, and have suicide bombers at their disposal. Iraq does not have the political or military leadership at this time to go on the offensive without serious logistical support from western nations, and the U.S. has no one it can trust in Syria. If the U.S. was really serious about destroying Islamic State anytime soon, then Gen. Dempsey would publicly recommend ground troops immediately. He won’t do that because it is clear that the president is more concerned with finding a way to pass the buck onto a future U.S. president than he is with handing the threat now.

How can anyone know this? Easy. Simply read The New York Times, which reported Sept. 13 on the a meeting the president had with select journalists:

Mr. Obama had what guests on Wednesday afternoon described as a bereft look as he discussed the murders of Mr. Foley and Mr. Sotloff, particularly because two other Americans are still being held. Days later, ISIS would report beheading a British hostage with another video posted online Saturday.

But the president said he had already been headed toward a military response before the men’s deaths. He added that ISIS had made a major strategic error by killing them because the anger it generated resulted in the American public’s quickly backing military action.

If he had been “an adviser to ISIS,” Mr. Obama added, he would not have killed the hostages but released them and pinned notes on their chests saying, “Stay out of here; this is none of your business.” Such a move, he speculated, might have undercut support for military intervention.

What kind of president gives an Islamic terrorist group ideas on ways to undercut U.S. public support for military operations that simultaneously allow the caliphate’s continuous rise? Mr. Obama’s Times interview translates: “You know, if you play your cards right, you can turn the public against me and still achieve your objectives, right? Think it about, guys. Seriously.”

Mr. Obama’s unsolicited advice to Islamic State only further highlights his deep desire for all radical Islamic terrorism to be a  problem that is largely confined to the Middle East, with occasional “law enforcement matters” (e.g., car bombs) that affect western interests around the globe. His infamous “jayvee team” interview with The New Yorker once again comes back to haunt him:

“I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.”

Mr. Obama’s interview with the Times essentially gives the terrorist group the “off ramp” elitist Beltway pundits always speak of any time an international thug starts invading countries or slaughtering his own people. The president is saying, “Guys, there’s still time. You can still make this ‘none of our business.'” What he doesn’t understand is that the end game for any group that seeks to create an Islamic caliphate requires the subjugation of free people.

Before Mr. Obama was elected president in 2008, people joked about the number of times he voted “present” in the Illinois State Senate. It wasn’t a joke, because he adopted a “vote present” foreign policy upon assuming the role of commander in chief. In the vacuum created by a sudden absence of American leadership, it was never going to be picked up by the cultural cadaver that is Europe. Instead, it was filled by the world’s worst actors, acting like prisoners who just had their jail cells thrown open by the head warden.

“Peace at any cost” doesn’t bring peace — it brings war. Sadly, it appears as though the message hasn’t penetrated the minds of Code Pink’s most ardent supporters, the president or members of his inner circle.

Obama’s Orwellian doublethink comes back to haunt him on Islamic State: A timeline

Republican v Democrat terrorism poll

Gallup released a poll on Sept. 11 that showed the Republican Party now has a commanding lead over Democrats when it comes to who the voters trust to protect them from terrorist groups and threats abroad.

The results spoke volumes about Americans’ opinion of the president’s “lead from behind” foreign policy, and his inability to comprehend the threat posed to the nation by radical Islam:

The Republican Party has expanded its historical edge over the Democratic Party in Americans’ minds as being better able to protect the U.S. from international terrorism and military threats. At this point, 55% of Americans choose the GOP on this dimension, while 32% choose the Democratic Party. This is the widest Republican advantage in Gallup’s history of asking this question since 2002.

The results were so bad that Meet the Press host Chuck Todd said the President Obama was on the verge of doing “Jimmy Carter-like damage” to the Democratic Party on matters of national security.

Where did it all go wrong? While an argument can been made that the predicament the U.S. (and the world) now finds itself in can be traced back to the president’s failure to secure a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with Iraq in December, 2011, that still doesn’t get to the root of the problem.

Mr. Obama’s problem is that he fundamentally does not understand who and what he is up against. The following timeline, while incomplete, does a decent job highlighting the president’s ideological blinders.

June 10, 2014, Iraq’s second-largest city, Mosul, falls to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

June 13, 2014, President Obama says during an interview with Amy Davidson of The New Yorker that the group that just took over Falluja — Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant — is the equivalent of a junior varsity basketball team: “The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant.”

June 30, 2014, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant becomes “Islamic State” and declares its territory covering Iraq and Syria to be origin of a new caliphate in the heart of the Middle East.

August 7, 2014, President Obama announces that the U.S. will begin conducting airstrikes in Iraq against Islamic State.

August 19, 2014, American journalist James Foley is executed by Islamic State. Video of the his gruesome death is posted online.

August 21, 2014, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel says Islamic State is “beyond a terrorist group.”

August 23, 2014, Over in Libya, Islamic fighters seize control of Tripoli’s airport. News outlets report that the intelligence community believes multiple jets previously housed at the airport are now missing.

September 3, 2014, President Obama simultaneously says the U.S. will “destroy” Islamic State and reduce it to a “manageable problem.”

September 3, 2014, Vice President Joe Biden says the U.S. will follow Islamic State to “the gates of hell.”

September 4, 2014, President Obama says he “doesn’t have a strategy yet” when asked how he plans to deal with Islamic State’s increasing power and influence in Syria.

September 9, 2014, Multiple news outlets wonder if Libya, now at the mercy of various warring Islamic groups, can officially be called a failed state.

September 10, 2014, President Obama says the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is not Islamic in an address to the nation: “ISIL is not ‘Islamic.’ No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim.” No one asks the president if he believes the Ottoman Empire was Islamic.

September 11, 2014, — 13 years after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks — John Kerry tells CNN the U.S. is not at war with Islamic State, adding “What we are doing is engaging in a very significant counterterrorism operation. It’s going to go on for some period of time. If somebody wants to think about it as being a war with ISIL, they can do so, but the fact is it’s a major counterterrorism operation that will have many different moving parts.”

September 11, 2014, —  13 years after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks — State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf says U.S. military operations against Islamic State are not a continuation of the war on terrorism, telling a reporter, “When we talk about how you degrade and defeat terrorist organizations, it’s not exactly I think how you’re probably using the term. And it’s not one that I’m using.”

September 11, 2014,  —  13 years after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks — White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest flippantly responds to a reporter’s question about how the Obama administration defines “destroy” when it comes to Islamic State by saying, “I didn’t bring my Webster’s dictionary.”

September 12, 2014, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest decides the U.S. is at war with Islamic State, saying “The United States is at war with ISIL in the same way we are at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates.”

September 12, 2014, Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby says the U.S. is “at war” with Islamic State, but then goes on to downplay the military’s role in winning that war by stating “It’s about defeating [Islamic State’s] ideology.”

September 14, 2014, John Kerry reverses himself from his CNN interview just three days earlier and tells CBS host Bob Schieffer, “Yeah, we’re at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates.”

The history shown above points to a man who stubbornly clings to his September 10, 2001 worldview.

Only a man who is in willful denial can say on national television that the group called Islamic State is not Islamic. Only a man who is in too deep can give the State Department orders to say the U.S. is not at war on a Thursday but that the U.S. is at war on a Friday, when absolutely nothing has changed. Only a man who has been swallowed whole by his own hubris can believe that his Orwellian doublethink wouldn’t come back to haunt him.

Western Civilization is in a culture clash, and yet the president will twist himself into as many intellectual pretzels as necessary to convince himself that he’s strictly dealing with a law enforcement issue. In order to prove how liberal he is, Mr. Obama destroys his credibility by shielding a largely illiberal culture from criticism.

The American people are once again giving the conservative worldview its due. When evil men are chopping off heads, conducting crucifixions, and slaughtering women and children, the guy who “doesn’t have a strategy yet” because he’s been busy “leading from behind” will collapse in the polls. Likewise, so will his political party.

All Americans should root for the president on matters of national security, no matter what letter is next to his name. Unfortunately, that is incredibly hard to do when the commander in chief tries to convince the American people that a giant army called Islamic State does not include practitioners of Islam.

Suspected U.S. Islamic State recruits should be tried for treason by a jury of peers — not stripped of citizenship

Sen. Ted Cruz and other well-know conservatives have now become advocates for stripping suspected Islamic State members of their citizenship. If you feel inclined to side with that position, ask yourself the following questions:

  • Why do you fear the future consequences of giving the government more power to conduct surveillance on your fellow Americans, but not the power to strip them of their citizenship?
  • Why do you fear the militarization of state and local police forces, but not the ability of the federal government to revoke the citizenship of those accused of being terrorists?
  • Why do you fear a federal government that has shown its desire to chip away at the Second Amendment, yet you believe it would judiciously use the power to abort a man’s citizenship?
  • Why should the bar for ending a natural born American’s citizenship be lower than the bar used to try him for treason?

The Hill reported on Sen. Tex Cruz’s bill to strip Americans of their citizenship Sept. 5:

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is slated to introduce legislation next week that would revoke the U.S. citizenship of anyone fighting or providing support to terrorist groups working to attack the United States.

Cruz said he is filing the Expatriate Terrorist Act in reaction to the threat posed by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). It would provide another level of protection to prevent foreign fighters from re-entering the United States, he said.

“Americans who choose to go to Syria or Iraq to fight with vicious ISIS terrorists are party to a terrorist organization committing horrific acts of violence, including beheading innocent American journalists who they have captured,” Cruz said in a statement.
“There can be no clearer renunciation of their citizenship in the United States, and we need to do everything we can to preempt any attempt on their part to re-enter our country and carry out further attacks on American civilians.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) gave support to a similar proposal in a Time magazine op-ed Thursday.

When an American is accused of committing a treasonous act, then you try him for treason in a court of law. You don’t set up a system where his citizenship is arbitrarily revoked and then instruct the U.S. military and the intelligence community to find him and drop bombs on his head.

CBS News reported in 2001:

The last person convicted of treason was Tomoya Kawakita, a Japanese-American sentenced to death in 1952 for tormenting American prisoners of war during World War II. Even such a clear-cut case created qualms; President Eisenhower commuted Kawakita’s sentence to life imprisonment.

The difficulties of meeting the tough constitutional standards — two witnesses or a confession in court to “levying war” against the United States — help explain why treason is rarely prosecuted.

No one at Aaron Burr’s 1807 trial doubted that he wanted to make himself emperor of Mexico, and probably part of the United States. It’s just that planning war was not the same as “levying war,” said Chief Justice John Marshall, who acquitted Burr. …

The framers of the Constitution crafted the narrowest definition of treason known until that time because they sought to protect Americans from the blunt instrument that European rulers had used against political enemies.

The CBS piece came out as the United States was trying to figure out what to do with John Walker Lindh. For those who don’t remember, he was part of a 2001 Taliban prison uprising in Afghanistan that killed CIA officer Mike Spann.

John Walker Lindh AP

Even Lindh wasn’t tried for treason. Instead, he pleaded guilty to one count of supplying services to the Taliban and a lesser criminal charge involving the weapons he was carrying at the time. The “American Taliban” was sentenced to 20 years in prison for his crimes against the United States.

Would you elect a man president who, in his zeal to punish treasonous Americans, engineered tools to be favored by future tyrants?

Sen. Ted Cruz and his supporters are playing with fire. The track record of giving the federal government more power indicates that future generations of innocent Americans will get burned if his plan succeeds. 

Biden says U.S. will follow Islamic State to ‘gates of hell,’ channels goofy huckster instead of Churchill

Joe Biden Gates of Hell Islamic StateThe world is in a very scary place. As the mountain of decapitated heads pile up for the Islamic State group across the Middle East, president Obama is giving contradictory speeches where he says he’s going to “destroy” the terror group in one sentence, only to say moments later that he’d settle for rendering them a “manageable problem.” Worse, Vice President Joe Biden is giving speeches to the American people where he says the U.S. will “follow them to the gates of hell until they are brought to justice.” He’s trying to channel his inner Winston Churchill but only finding a goofy disingenuous huckster — and the world knows it.

The Washington Post provided a portion of the text from his Sept. 3 speech:

“The American people are so much stronger, so much more resolved than any enemy can fully understand,” Biden said, speaking at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. “We don’t forget. We take care of those who are grieving, and when that’s finished, they should know we will follow them to the gates of hell until they are brought to justice, because hell is where they will reside.”

One can’t help but cringe at a man who a.) only uses religious rhetoric when he’s trying to rile people up, and b.) beats bombastic war drums before the American public when the administration he works for has no intention of psychologically preparing the nation for the battles ahead.

The sting of the vice president’s speech is even worse for those who remember the way he “cared” for Charles Woods, who grieved over the loss of his son Tyrone after the Sept. 11, 2012 terror attacks in Benghazi, Libya.

“Did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?” (Joe Biden)

Contrast Mr. Biden’s words with those of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill before the House of Commons during World War II:

“You ask, what is our policy? I say it is to wage war by land, sea, and air. War with all our might and with all the strength God has given us, and to wage war against a monstrous tyranny never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalog of human crime. That is our policy.

You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word. It is victory. Victory at all costs — victory in spite of all terrors — victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival,” (Winston Churchill. June 18, 1940).

At one time, Western Civilization had leading men of moral clarity. They spoke with purpose and conviction, and the world knew that they were serious. The enemies of freedom and liberty knew that a man like Churchill was up to the task of taking them on.

Churchill APBut what of Mr. Biden? Can anyone say with a straight face that if the survival of the American way of life hung in the balance that he could stir the souls of good men and women to action with words that rivaled Churchill?

“Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last a thousand years, men will still say, ‘This was their finest hour,'” (Winston Churchill. June 18, 1940).

Americans should not take any stock in Mr. Biden’s “gates of hell” speech, but they would be wise to say a prayer for the future of Western Civilization.

Joe Scarborough: Obama’s ‘We don’t have a strategy’ remark comes from ‘The Art of War’

Joe Scarborough MSNBCOccasionally I write satirical pieces for this blog, and last week I wanted to put something together where the president’s supporters made the case that his “We don’t have a strategy yet” comment on Islamic State was really a masterstroke that Sun Tzu would applaud. It turns out that Joe Scarborough was thinking along the same lines — except he may really believe Obama is a strategic genius straight out of the pages of “The Art of War.”

Given that Joe Scarborough is the guy who would rather boycott Burger King over its decision to merge with Tim Hortons than to figure out why iconic American companies are heading to Canada, it’s probably safe to say (sadly) that he wasn’t joking.

“The Morning Joe” panel said on Aug. 29:

Scarborough: “This is straight out of ‘The Art of War.'”

Panelist: “I can’t tell if you’re joking or not.”

Scarborough: “No, I’m not joking. No, I’m not — I am dead serious. I’m not joking. It’s straight out of ‘The Art of War’ where, when you were weak, you make you enemies think you are strong. When you are strong, you make your enemies think you are weak. If I’m about to attack another country, no, I would say — No, if I were about to attack another country I would say ‘You know what, we don’t have a strategy. We’re still working it out. You know. And then I would say ‘Scramble the jets. Scramble the jets.’ Right? … Okay, I’m sorry. Am I wrong?”

Here is  an excerpt from “The Art of War”:

“Strike at their gaps, attack when they are lax, don’t let the enemy figure out how to prepare. This is why it is said that in military operations formlessness is the most effective. One of the great warrior-leaders said, ‘The most efficient of movements is the one that is unexpected; the best of plans is the one that is unknown,” (Meng Shi).

“To divulge means to leak out. The military has no constant form, just as water has no constant shape — adapt as you face the enemy, without letting them know beforehand what you are going to do. Therefore, assessment of the enemy is in the mind, observation of the situation is in the eyes,” (Cao Cao).

“When your strategy is deep and far-reaching, then what you gain by your calculations is much, so you can win before you even fight. When your strategic thinking is shallow and nearsighted, then what you gain by your calculations is little, so you lose before you do battle. Much strategy prevails over little strategy, so those with no strategy cannot but be defeated,” (Zhang Yu).

What is more likely: That the U.S. military has plenty of strategies for defeating Islamic State, which Mr. Obama simply hasn’t decided on because he’s struck with political paralysis, or that the U.S. military doe not have a strategy? My bet is that Mr. Obama’s advisers have given him countless plans, which have all been rejected because actual leadership requires making decisions that are politically unpopular. It’s much easier to “lead from behind” and depend on others to come up with a strategy than it is to take charge and make decisions that you know will cost good men and women their lives.

Perhaps the “conservative” Mr. Scarborough should read The Washington Post. The paper wrote on Aug. 29:

His senior advisers uniformly have warned of the unprecedented threat to America and Americans represented by Islamic extremists in Syria and Iraq. But Mr. Obama didn’t seem to agree. “Now, ISIL [the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant] poses an immediate threat to the people of Iraq and to people throughout the region,” he said. “My priority at this point is to make sure that the gains that ISIL made in Iraq are rolled back.” Contrast that ambition with this vow from Secretary of State John F. Kerry: “And make no mistake: We will continue to confront ISIL wherever it tries to spread its despicable hatred. The world must know that the United States of America will never back down in the face of such evil.”

The discrepancies raise the question of whether Mr. Obama controls his own administration, but that’s not the most disturbing element. His advisers are only stating the obvious: Russia has invaded Ukraine. The Islamic State and the Americans it is training are a danger to the United States. When Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. says the threat they pose is “in some ways . . . more frightening than anything I think I’ve seen as attorney general,” it’s not because he is a warmonger or an alarmist. He’s describing the world as he sees it. When Mr. Obama refuses to acknowledge the reality, allies naturally wonder whether he will also refuse to respond to it.

That is not the hallmark behavior of a man who has read Sun Tzu. It is the tell-tale sign of a man who stepped into the batter’s box before he ever took a fastball. As strikeout after strikeout piles up, he continues to blame everyone except himself for his inability lead the team to victory.

The problem for the president is that the Islamic State group isn’t a mere rival of the Chicago White Sox — it’s a terrorist organization. When the president strikes out on matters of national security, innocent Americans die.

If Joe Scarborough was joking about the president’s “We don’t have a strategy” remark, then he should stop because Islamic State isn’t a laughing matter. If he was serious and he really believes the president knows exactly what he’s doing, then the MSNBC host should explain how Libya’s fall to Islamic radicals, Iraq’s implosion, the annexation of Crimea to Russia and the the invasion of eastern Ukraine (the president still calls it an “incursion”) all fit into Mr. Obama’s master plan.

Read “The Art of War” again, Mr. Scarborough. You’re having a lot trouble putting things into their proper context.