Obama’s Foreign Policy Fraud Has Come Undone

Reblogged from The Counter Jihad Report

By Daniel Greenfield:

The mass riots and attacks on embassies do not mark the moment when Obama’s foreign policy imploded. That happened a long time ago. What these attacks actually represent is the moment when the compliant media were no longer able to continue hiding that failure in bottom drawers and back pages.

The media successfully covered for Obama’s retreat from Iraq, and the weekly Al Qaeda car bombings and rush to civil war no longer make the news. The media have also done their best to cover for Obama’s disaster in Afghanistan which has cost thousands of American lives while completely failing to defeat the Taliban.

Obama had hoped to cover up his defeat in Afghanistan by cutting a deal with the “moderate” Taliban, but the Taliban, moderate or extreme, refused to help him cover his ass. Attacks in Afghanistan have escalated, but the media have avoided challenging the bizarre assertions from the Obama campaign that the mission has been accomplished and Karzai will be ready to take over security in a few years.

And then the Islamists did something that the media just couldn’t ignore. They staged a series of attacks on American embassies and foreign targets beginning on September 11. These attacks, the most devastating and public of which took place on September 11, were accompanied by Islamist black flags and chants of, “We Are All Osama” in countries across North Africa and the Middle East.

The media have done their best to avoid dealing with the implications of Islamists carrying out a coordinated series of attacks on everything from foreign embassies to peacekeeping forces in the Sinai, by focusing on a Mohammed movie which the Egyptian Salafists exploited for propaganda purposes, rather than on the tactical support and level of coordination required to launch such a broad series of attacks and what the attacks and their scope say about the transformation of the conflict from stray attacks by terrorist groups to armed militias taking control of entire regions.

Rather than doing their job, the media seemed to be dividing their attention between reporting on the carnage without any context and putting out talking points to prevent Mitt Romney from taking political advantage of the disaster. The media’s accusations that Mitt Romney was politicizing the conflict were absurd, especially coming after the New York Times ran an editorial on September 11 attacking George W. Bush for not preventing the attacks of that day and after five years of Obama and his media allies politicizing every suicide bombing in Iraq.

While American embassies burned, the media were determined to go on doing what they had been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. They had covered for Obama in three disastrous wars, one of which he had begun and which had exploded in the faces of staffers at the Benghazi consulate. And they are still covering for him, but the conflict has moved beyond the point where it can be relegated to the back pages of the daily papers.

Obama had hoped that the Islamists would see the advantage of allowing him to save face and give them another term of the same inept appeasement disguised as diplomatic soft power. Instead the Islamists seized on his weakness and trumpeted it to the world to humiliate him and the country that he had been temporarily placed in charge of.

If Obama had really understood Muslims, the way that he claimed he did during the election, then he would have known that this was coming all along. The way of the desert raid is to catch the enemy at his weakest and most vulnerable, and to humiliate him for that weakness in the eyes of his peers. In the honor-shame culture of Islam, there is only room for honor or shame. Obama tried to cover his shame and retain his honor and his enemies tore that façade of honor away from him and left only shame.

Read more at Front Page

 

Obama gives tepid response to Embassy massacre – where is the emotion, anger, leadership?

I remember a few years ago an emotional President Obama very loudly and very angrily chastised the Cambridge Police for questioning Professor Gates regarding a possible break-in.  Where was that emotion and anger when he discussed the massacre and, in my opinion, act of terrorism at our embassy in Libya?  Where was that anger when he mentioned the loss of four American lives?  Why wasn’t the massacre designated as an act of terror?  On the eleventh anniversary of 9/11?  The 9/11 tragedy that once united our country?  The country our president is now dividing?

 

His lack of emotion reminds me of his laughable ‘shout out’ before announcing the ‘workplace violence’ that killed 13 soldiers and civilians at Ft. Hood.  President Barack Hussein Obama has shown us his true colors and they are not red, white and blue.

Obama has alienated Israel and once again snubbed Bibi Netanyahu while endorsing and assisting the Muslim Brotherhood’s takeover in Egypt.  In “Audacity of Hope” he writes: “I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”  Well, sir, they are shifting in an ugly direction and we now know where you stand.

From Allen West Republic this statement from Congressman Allen West expresses my sentiments exactly:

“The Obama Administration touted the Arab Spring as an awakening of freedom, which we now see is a nightmare of Islamism. Even more concerning, is the initial response to these attacks last night from the embassy officials of the Obama Administration was to apologize for a Facebook video that supposedly hurt Muslim feelings.  President Obama’s policy of appeasement towards the Islamic world has manifested itself into a specter of unconscionable hatred. How anyone can believe this President is strong on national security and foreign policy is beyond my comprehension.  President Obama has clearly surpassed former President Jimmy Carter and his actions during the Iranian Embassy crisis as the weakest and most ineffective person to ever occupy the White House.”

President Obama needs to start acting like a president and leader instead of an apologetic campaigner.  Maybe he should stay in DC long enough to meet with his security council – he might actually learn something.  From Counter Jihad Report:

President Obama is touting his foreign policy experience on the campaign trail, but startling new statistics suggest that national security has not necessarily been the personal priority the president makes it out to be. It turns out that more than half the time, the commander in chief does not attend his daily intelligence meeting. During his first 1,225 days in office, Obama attended his Presidential Daily Brief just 536 times — or 43.8 percent of the time. During 2011 and the first half of 2012, his attendance became even less frequent — falling to just over 38 percent. By contrast, Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush almost never missed his daily intelligence meeting.

Even Sarah Palin came out swinging –

Apparently President Obama can’t see Egypt and Libya from his house. On the anniversary of the worst terrorist attacks ever perpetrated on America, our embassy in Cairo and our consulate in Benghazi were attacked by violent Islamic mobs.  The embassy actually apologized to the violent mob attacking us, and it even went so far as to chastise those who use free speech to “hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.”  We already know that President Obama likes to “speak softly” to our enemies. If he doesn’t have a “big stick” to carry, maybe it’s time for him to grow one.

This may well be President Obama’s ‘Jimmy Carter’ moment and his ultimate undoing.  President Ronald Reagan may not have had much experience in foreign policy before he took office but he damn well earned the respect and even admiration of foreign leaders.  He dared Gorbachev to ‘tear down this wall’ and won.  He drew a line in the sand and stood his ground.  The difference?  Ronald Reagan loved our country and everything she stands for, unconditionally.  Barack Hussein Obama – not so much!

Mitt Romney sounded much more Presidential this morning than our ‘Commander in Chief’ and he will give us the leadership we had with Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.  If we make it until November.  Do you feel safer than you did four years ago? I don’t.  Pray and pray hard – God Bless America!

Here is the movie trailer that is supposedly the impetus of the massacre but we all know that no reason is required for the barbarians at the gate!  It is not the movie, it is Anti-Americanism that triggered yesterday’s act of terrorism.  The sooner Americans realize Islamists want to kill us, the sooner we can begin to cut the political correctcrap.

 

 

Remember the motto of the Muslim Brotherhood:

– Allah is our objective.
– The Prophet is our leader.
– Qur’an is our law.
– Jihad is our way.
– Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.

Exclusive Video: Anwar al-Awlaki’s Long-Lost U.S. Speech from September 1, 2001

Reblogged from The Counter Jihad Report

 

111002 Al-Awlaki death deals major blow to al-...

On September 1, 2001, just days before the 9/11 attacks, Awlaki gave an infamous lecture on “tolerance” at the 2001 ISNA convention, just as some of his disciples were preparing to launch the largest terrorist attack in American history.

 

One of his co-panelists in 2001, Hamza Yusuf, is one of this year’s keynote speakers. At the 1995 ISNA convention, Yusuf told the crowd that  Judaism “is a most racist religion.”

 

Video of Awlaki’s lecture has never before been viewed by the public. PJ Media has obtained a video — watch it above in its entirety.

 

At the time of the speech, Awlaki was a media darling. The New York Times hailed him as part of “a new generation of Muslim leader capable of merging East and West.” NPR contrasted Awlaki with Osama bin Laden, describing Awlaki as one of the “moderates who want to solve the problems without violence” and someone who could “build bridges between Islam and the West.” Awlaki was even featured in a November 2001 Washington Post Ramadan online chat.

The recognition of Awlaki wasn’t exclusive to the media. He was also leading prayers for congressional Muslim staffers on Capitol Hill. Post-9/11, he was lecturing on Islam inside the executive dining room of the Pentagon, still scarred from the al-Qaeda hijackers that had crashed American Airlines Flight 77 into it.

He was, according to the Wall Street Journal, even one of the instructors that taught prospective Muslim chaplains for the U.S. military.

Read the rest at The Counter Jihad Report

Prophet of Doom – Islam’s Terrorist Dogma in Muhammed’s Own Words

Via Prophet of Doom

Islam in Muhammad’s Own Words  Prophet of Doom is the best-documented, most comprehensive, presentation of Islam’s five oldest and most reliable scriptural sources. Ishaq’s Biography of Muhammad, Tabari’s History of Islam, and Bukhari’s and Muslim‘s Hadith, were used to reorder the Qur’anchronologically and to set its surahs into the context of Muhammad’s life. When this evidence is evaluated systematically, the only rational conclusion is that Islam’s lone prophet was a ruthless terrorist, a mass-murderer, a thief, slave trader, rapist and pedophile.

Islam’s Dark Past Consider what is actually known about the Qur’an (Koran), its origin and content, and learn how we came to possess Muhammad’s recital in its present form. Evaluate the veracity of Islam’s foundational texts and discover when and where they were written.
Would You Believe? Science, sanity, evidence, and reason were discarded during the creation of Islam’s genesis accounts, but plenty of humor remains.
Dishonest Abe It is said that Islam is one of three Abrahamic religions, and that it is therefore similar to Christianity and Judaism, but is any of that true?
 
Can Qusayy Scam? Uncover Islam’s darkest secret: the religion is little more than a monotheistic veneer over pagan Arab traditions. Learn who Qusaay was and consider why he built the Ka’aba.
With Whom Am I Speaking? According to Muhammad, the initial Qur’an recital did not go well. Ponder what really happened that fateful night and discover with whom Muhammad was speaking.
The Abused Abuser What was Muhammad’s life really like in Mecca and how did his childhood influence the Meccan surahs?
The Pedophile Pirate Journey back in time to the prophet’s justification for marrying a child and consider the purpose of his first terrorist raid.
Satan’s Bargain Understand the motivation for Muhammad’s Satanic Verses, and learn why a fatwa for Salman Rushdie‘s murder was issued when he wrote about them.
War Made a Profit (and a Prophet) Consider how Muhammad turned a skirmish in the sand with a bunch of merchants trying to protect their property into the substance of the Medina surahs.
Mein Kampf Ponder the similarities between Islam and Nazism; between Mein Kampf and the Qur’an. Only the Qur’an outsells Mein Kampf (My Jihad) in Islamic countries. What are the consequences of tolerating Muhammad’s religious scheme?
Islam’s Holocaust Of their Jewish neighbors, the first Muslim said, “I pass judgment on them that their men shall be killed, their women and children enslaved, and their property divided.” What was the motive behind the first Islamic genocide?
Lustful Libertine Evaluate the evidence proving that Muhammad created his religion and recited the Qur’an to satiate his cravings for sex, power, and money.
Jihad Does jihad mean “spiritual struggle” as Islamic apologists protest, or is Osama bin Laden correct when he calls Muslims to jihad, to “fight in the cause of Allah?”
Print the Book Print out any chapter or the entire Prophet of Doom volume, if reading 1,000 pages online is too burdensome.
Audio Book Recognizing that it can be more convenient and enjoyable to listen to audio than it is to read a book, we have recorded an audio version of Prophet of Doom for your convenience.

Read more here.

Related articles:

Beyond Stupid: Fort Hood Killings are “Workplace Violence”

Original Post:  12/12/11

By Gadi Adelman via Family Security Matters

English: Major Nidal Malik Hasan, Fort Hood sh...Yes, while Major Nidal Hasan screamed “Allah Akbar” as he shot and killed 14 people in cold blood (14 actually died since 21 year old victim Francheska Velez was 3 months pregnant, making two lives in my book) and wounded 29 others, this act was nothing more than “Workplace Violence”.

Remember the term “Going Postal”? That was workplace violence, but then again, that term all but disappeared since it wasn’t ‘politically correct’.

 

 

So despite the fact that Major Nidal Hasan exchanged as many as 20 emails with Anwar Awlaki, had ‘SOA’, (Soldier Of Allah) on his business cards and Awlaki declared Hasan a hero, it was not terrorism.

Back in June of 2010 I wrote about this when Obama released his National Security Strategy. I explained then that by eliminating certain words from the administrations vocabulary it would lead to this very situation,

Removing words such as “Radical Islam,” “terrorism” and “Jihadist” from national security documents was bad enough; now we are saying we are no longer at war with terrorists. We hope terrorists get the memo.

In the article I quoted John Brennan, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism who stated in a speech when speaking on the new National Security Strategy,

“The President’s strategy is absolutely clear about the threat we face. Our enemy is not ‘terrorism’ because terrorism is but a tactic. Our enemy is not ‘terror’ because terror is a state of mind and as Americans we refuse to live in fear. Nor do we describe our enemy as ‘jihadists’ or ‘Islamists’ because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenant of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children.”

We really shouldn’t be surprised that the Foot Hood Massacre would be classified as “Workplace Violence” when the Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and Assistant to the President makes a statement like that.

This all actually goes back to August of 2010 when the Department of Defense released its report on the Fort Hood shooting, on page 4 of the 23 page report,

Recommendation 2.6 a,b: Update Polices To Address Workplace Violence

But even before the DOD report was the Pentagon report (Lessons from Fort Hood) of January 2010. I had written about that as well,

The 86 page report by the Pentagon never even mentions his motives even though he screamed “Allah Akbar” as he shot his fellow soldiers in cold blood. What’s more is that the words “Islam” or “Muslim” are never mentioned in 86 pages. Not even once.

So why does it matter you may ask. As I have explained in the past, the importance of words goes far beyond the correct terms. By telling our Intel agencies and law enforcement people what words they can and cannot use creates a very dangerous situation.

Our law enforcement people know, understand and what’s more want to stop the threat of terrorism, I know this because I have lectured, taught and trained many of them. The problem is that the hands of our law enforcement people are the ones being handcuffed.

Imagine, as an Intel agent sitting down to write a report warning of a possible attack on one of our Military bases here in the U.S. This report would be for all law enforcement nationwide about an individual that has been emailing back and forth with someone in a terrorist organization. But, you are not allowed to use the words “Terrorist”, “Terror”, “Islam”, “Islamist”, “Radical”, “Jihad” or “Jihadist”. How can you even describe what may be without those words?

Terrorism became “Man-made catastrophe” which evidently has now become “Workplace Violence”.

Imagine how that warning would read,

We have Intel that a pending man-made workplace violent catastrophe may take place on a Military base here in the U.S.

We cannot elaborate as to the source other than to say some emails were received by an individual who may carry out this violence.

We cannot elaborate as to where the emails were sent from or who they were received by nor can we say what part of the world this threat stems from.

We cannot say if the individual that may carry out this violence is male or female, nor can we give you a description, age or ethnicity as that might lead to stereotyping.

But remember we here at Homeland Security are on top of it and warning you of all possible threats.

It sounds crazy, perhaps, but as I wrote back in August, 2010,

Now, we have the Obama administration, who in their infinite wisdom has removed each and every word from the National Security Strategy that in any way, shape or form refers to Islam. No longer will anyone that works for the Government be allowed to say, use or write “Islamic terrorist”, “Islamic extremist”, “Jihad”, “Jihadist”, “ Islamist”… you get the point. I am sure the term “Muslim maniac” is out as well, even though that wasn’t specifically mentioned.

By not allowing our Intel and law enforcement to identify the enemy, there is no way to even begin to defend ourselves against it. Perhaps that is too much commonsense for our current administration, but it is a fact nonetheless.

The main problem now is the targeting of military personal and their families here in the U.S. The number of alleged plots targeting the military has grown significantly. There have been 33 plots against the U.S. military since Sept. 11, 2001, and 70 percent of those threats have been since mid-2009.

Just this past Wednesday during a joint Senate hearing in which the classification of “workplace violence” came up again, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) stated,

“Military communities in the U.S. have become the most desirable and vulnerable targets for the violent homegrown Islamist extremists seeking to kill Americans in their homeland.”

According to a report on Fox News,

Sen. Susan Collins on Wednesday blasted the Defense Department for classifying the Fort Hood massacre as workplace violence and suggested political correctness is being placed above the security of the nation’s Armed Forces at home.

During a joint session of the Senate and House Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday, the Maine Republican referenced a letter from the Defense Department depicting the Fort Hood shootings as workplace violence. She criticized the Obama administration for failing to identify the threat as radical Islam.

The article went on to quote Sen. Joe Lieberman,

The chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Connecticut independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, said the military has become a “direct target of violent Islamist extremism” within the United States.

“The stark reality is that the American service member is increasingly in the terrorists’ scope and not just overseas in a traditional war setting,” Lieberman told Fox News before the start of Wednesday’s hearing.

Darius Long, the father of Army Pvt. William Andrew Long, who was shot and killed at an Arkansas military recruitment center in 2009 summed it up best in my opinion,

“My faith in government is diminished. It invents euphemisms … Little Rock is a drive by and Fort Hood is just workplace violence. The truth is denied.”

Yes Mr. Long you are correct and if the Obama administration had its way, 9/11 would be labeled “vandalism”.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Gadi Adelman is a freelance writer and lecturer on the history of terrorism and counterterrorism. He grew up in Israel, studying terrorism and Islam for 35 years after surviving a terrorist bomb in Jerusalem in which 7 children were killed. Since returning to the U. S., Gadi teaches and lectures to law enforcement agencies as well as high schools and colleges. He can be heard every Thursday night at 8PM est. on his own radio show “America Akbar” on Blog Talk Radio. He can be reached through his website gadiadelman.com.

The Basics of Shariah Law – Lt. Gen. (Ret.) W.G. Jerry Boykin

An excellent video explaining why Islam is not a religion but a totalitarian way of life – a theocracy – and should not be protected as a religion under our laws!  He also explains how Sharia law is not compatible with our Constitution.

I agree, Americans need to get informed and involved!  Check out the nearest ACT for America chapter near you!

The Left’s Seven Tragic Terror Lies

Reblogged from The Counter Jihad Report

 

by RALPH PETERS at FSM:

If they did not put our troops, our citizens and our country at risk, the Left’s fantastic lies about terror and terrorists would be hilarious. The Left’s self-righteous nonsense in this sphere has no grounding in empirical or historical reality, but, then, reality has long been a greater threat to the Left than Islamist fanatics (the last thing any Leftie wants to do is to face the vast human wastage generated by the addictive, enervating and morally debilitating hook-the-poor social programs of the last five decades).

So, when it comes to addressing the real and deadly terrorist threat, the American left responds in the best Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Chavista and community-organizer traditions: When the facts aren’t palatable, make up new “facts.” And political correctness has worked its poisonous tentacles so deeply into the American body politic that not even our generals challenge the ludicrous claims the Left hurls at us in its neo-Bolshevik bullying mode of shouting down every last unwelcome truth.

Of course, the left’s lies are countless, but the hard left has mastered the art of reducing the most complex human challenges to bumper-sticker slogans as nonsensical as they are reassuring to the herd (the wildly counter-factual prize probably goes to a leftie favorite, “War never changes anything.” On the contrary, war has always changed a great deal, which is why we have wars). These happy-face mantras never rise above intellectual flatulence, but the massed sheep on the Left enjoy the aroma (“Yes, we can!”).

The problem, of course, is that many of our national leaders have been brainwashed with the same slogans. The Left has mastered another technique dictators forged long ago: Repeat a lie often enough and it will be taken as truth. And, of course, our media play along.

So let’s give the slogan-hucksters a brief time-out and dissect just seven of their favorite lines:

One: Killing terrorists only turns them into martyrs. Nope. Killing terrorists turns them into dead terrorists. Of all the terrorists we’ve killed since 9/11, how many are celebrated as martyrs in the Muslim world today? Remember the Butcher of Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi? The Left solemnly warned us that killing him would turn him into a martyr and mobilize the Muslim world against us. Didn’t happen. Instead, his fellow Arabs spit upon his grave. And what about the big lad, Comrade Osama? We heard no end of grave pronunciamentos from “public intellectuals”and other fellow travelers that killing him would not only make him a martyr, but lead to an explosion of Muslim fury. Well, check it out: Not a single serious demonstration marked the one-year anniversary of his death (by the way, I’m growing confused: Were any SEALs actually in bin Laden’s compound, or did President Obama take down Osama alone, with his bare hands? That seems to be the White House position of late).

Killing terrorists doesn’t create problems. It eliminates specific problems and reduces others. What creates problems is capturing terrorists. That’s when they become martyrs, inspiring kidnappings and other attacks to free them, and leading Leftists to champion them as “prisoners of conscience” and victims of vile American oppression. Witness the recent courtroom circus at Guantanamo, where monstrous terrorists (men who should have been dead at least eight years ago) have been granted a global platform for their cause.

As a former intelligence officer, I sympathize with those who believe we need more interrogations, but I’m still for killing every terrorist we can find right on the spot-until a grown-up president revives serious clandestine operations in which the CIA can capture, strenuously interrogate then execute known terrorists without it ever becoming public knowledge. The only problem with waterboarding is that somebody told.

Two: We can’t kill our way out of this. Actually, we’ve been killing our way out of “this” with great success. In fact, killing terrorists has been the only thing that has worked. And one thing Obama-terrified of a terror attack on his watch-has gotten right has been to increase the number of lethal attacks on terrorists and to favor killing them over capturing them (Obama did learn the real lesson of Guantanamo-kill, don’t capture–although he isn’t going to inform his base). Had Bush killed as many terrorists with drone strikes and special ops as Obama has, the Left would have cried out for him to be tried as a war criminal. And what do you think Obama’s base would have had to say if Bush had authorized killing Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen? (Just to be clear, I’m glad Awlaki’s dead.)

Leftists (see Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, etc.) don’t really object to war and violence. They just want to be in charge of it. For the left, it’s rarely about what’s done, but about who’s doing it: The left’s moral compass realigns on command.

We have 2,000 years of documented history of insurgencies led by religious fanatics (in every religion, by the way). In those two millennia, there is not a single example of a faith-fueled rebellion or terrorist movement that did not require extensive bloodshed to defeat it. Not one example in 2,000 years. And, indeed, resolute powers proved very, very good at killing their way out of it.

Three: Terrorists have rights. Sorry, that isn’t true, either. Legally, an insurgent who does not wear a distinguishing uniform, emblem or badge is an “unlawful combatant” under the much-cited, but rarely read, Laws of Land Warfare, including the Geneva and Hague Conventions. An unlawful combatant may be executed on the spot or, if you want to put a coat of wax on the paint job, after a quick tribunal in the field. We have invented rights for terrorists. And government and even military lawyers have been only too glad to go along, some because of ambition, others because they are cowed by the commissars of political correctness who now dominate our legal system at every level below the Supreme Court.

As for “human rights for terrorists,” that’s a judgment call. And my call is “No effing way, dude.” When a human being chooses to become a terrorist and massacres the innocent, he or she exits the human race.

Four: Formal trials will show them the superiority of our system of justice. You are a no-go at this station, as the drill sergeants used to say. Take yet another look at the Gitmo fiasco: You think those prisoners respect our system of justice? They’re gaming it brilliantly, turning it into an international mockery. Or are we to think that our judicial system, military or civilian, will so impress other terrorists that they’ll abandon their zealotry and head for the nearest Burger King? Perhaps we’re supposed to believe that these terror trials (when we finally get around to them) will somehow deter hardened terrorists, striking fear into their black little hearts? Tell me how it deters a hardcore fanatic to find out that, if the Americans capture him, he’ll get the first dental care of his entire life, medical care better than that provided to many law-abiding U.S. taxpayers, special halal (religiously correct) meals, free legal representation, endless appeals, plentiful recreation, and communal incarceration with his fellow perverts on a tropical beach? That’s supposed to be Club Dread? U.S.-citizen convicts in our Federal prisons get far fewer privileges than terrorists who murdered 3,000 Americans. And the Left still complains about their treatment (not so much now that Obama’s president, though-although he was going to close Gitmo in one year). Our legal system has about as much deterrent value against fanatical terrorists as a Hershey Bar.

And did I mention the tens of millions of taxpayer dollars devoted to incarcerating these mass-murderers every year? We’re not a shining example of justice. We’re a laughingstock.

Five: The only path to peace is negotiations. I was bewildered, yet again, when our president, in his recent re-election-campaign speech at Bagram airbase in Afghanistan said, first, that we would never allow the return of the Taliban to power, then, minutes later, that we secretly have been negotiating with the Taliban to bring them into the Afghan government. Even in Vietnam, we displayed more decency than that. But let me clarify: My bewilderment did not stem from our president’s shameless duplicity (for political reasons, he launched his disastrous surge, now, for other political reasons, he’s ending his surge and “fixing” the problem he himself created-Obama has the integrity of an offshore telemarketer selling timeshares). No, my bewilderment stemmed from the media’s utter failure to call the president on this blatant contradiction. But, then, our president can stop the sun in its course, walk on water and heal the sick all at once, as far the media are concerned.so he surely can perform the miracle of simultaneously keeping the Taliban out of Kabul and welcoming them back to Kabul. Much easier than turning water into a nice little unoaked chardonnay.

Negotiations are the opium of the diplomats. Again, in 2,000 years of factual history of religion-fueled insurgencies, not one has been quelled through negotiations. The basic problem is that fanatics on a mission from their god do not feel obligated to keep promises to unbelievers-even if they are cornered into making promises for tactical reasons or just to buy time. In political and even some ethnic insurgencies, negotiations may have a place. But in religion-driven uprisings and terror movements, negotiations are one hundred per cent worthless. You have to kill the buggers.

Which brings us to:

SixIt’s not about religion.  This is one of the  biggest hoots of all time.  Our enemies are jumping up and down, telling us  that their every action is done in the name of their god, and our response is  “Oh, they don’t really mean that!”  Even our military is so pathetically  cowed by the politically correct atmosphere in Washington that the generals play  along while the troops pay the price.  A good rule is that, when your enemy  tells you what he’s fighting for, willingly sacrifices his life for it, and  attracts recruits by preaching it, you will benefit from listening to what he’s  saying.  Our enemies do, indeed, know what they’re fighting for.   We’re the ones who don’t.  Oh, and you don’t become a suicide bomber  because you expect a pay raise.

This is not a religious war for us, but that’s one more factor that makes the  struggle asymmetrical.  We’re fighting for our values and to protect  ourselves.  Our enemies believe they’re on a mission from their god to  punish us for our sins, heresies and international hamburger promotions.   Islamist terrorists even justify the slaughter of their ostensibly less-devout  co-religionists in the name of purifying the faith or other equally ugly  rationales (al Qaeda has slaughtered far more Muslims than it has killed  Westerners).  Yet, we insist that the problem is just local politics, or  underdevelopment, or social alienation, or childhood trauma, blah, blah,  blah.

Islam as a whole is not attacking us, nor is every Muslim consumed with  dreams of anti-Western jihad.  But we have been and are being attacked by a  lethal, utterly committed minority of Islamist fanatics who believe their  actions are sanctioned and required by their deity.  If we can’t even face  that, we’re not only fools, but cowards.

One of the funniest jokes-within-the-joke on this subject has been Western,  post-Christian commentators claiming that what al Qaeda does isn’t really jihad.  News flash: We don’t get to determine what is or isn’t  jihad.  Muslims do.  And even Muslims who despise al Qaeda acknowledge  them as jihadis.  It’s as if the late Monsieur bin Laden had tried to tell  us which Christians qualify as born again.

Seven: It’s about us.  This claim arises from the  perverse narcissism of the Left that revels in the notion that all of the  world’s ills are the fault of America, capitalism and those of us who actually  pay taxes.  But for al Qaeda and that ailing organization’s deformed  offspring, we’re just a convenient, distant and instantly recognizable  symbol.  After all, you couldn’t really claim that Luxembourg was the Great  Satan and attract many followers.  Jihad goes better with Coke.

Historically, our country’s behavior has not been flawless.  But only  God is perfect.  And, taken as a whole, our influence on history and  humankind has been overwhelmingly positive.  But the American Left, the  global Left and Islamist terrorists have one thing in common: They cannot  tolerate or endure our success.  For the Left, we’re intolerable because  we’ve exposed their ideologies as worthless (which doesn’t stop them from  conducting further experiments on the poor), while, for the Islamists, we’ve  embarrassed their faith by triumphing in every sphere of human endeavor, while  Allah’s children still can’t build a decent bicycle.

The problems that give rise to Islamist terror are home-grown: The  comprehensive failure of a civilization that cannot escape the deadening  strictures of a still-immature faith that has not gotten beyond the  late-medieval Christian age of theological scholasticism, obsession with the  outward manifestations of faith and public conformity, and superstition.   In Western terms, al Qaeda’s burning witches (although, to be fully accurate,  the witch-burnings were a reactionary response to the later stress the  Renaissance placed on traditional cultures.but, then, why should I care about  accuracy, when the Left shuns facts like the Plague).

Humiliated by their own massive failure, Islamist fanatics take refuge in a  vision of a Muslim golden age that never really existed.  Among left-wing  fellow travelers in our own country, the terrorists’ benign counterparts are the  vortex-visiting, crystal-clutching, part-time-barista believers that Atlantis  will rise again and all wrongs shall be righted (and practitioners of Tantric  Yoga will live in rent-free condos).  Failed human beings and failed  civilizations need someone to blame and something greater than themselves to  believe in.  And Uncle Sam is the number one choice of lazy minds  everywhere for the name on the blame-line, while aberrant religious faith,  whether manifested by incendiary devices or too much sandalwood incense, is the  default position for the children of failure.

Or course, facts, evidence and logic don’t really matter to the Left.   The fundamental draw of the Left is that it promises an escape from reality (and  from hard work).  But even if we succeed in demolishing each one of the  myths listed above, the Left would still have an eighth, indestructible,  all-purpose myth to fall back on:

“It’s all Bush’s fault.”

Read more: Family Security Matters