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

 

‘Meet Me in the Stairwell’ – 9/11 Tribute

I received this shortly after the 9/11/01 terrorist attack on our country and read it on every anniversary.  I do not know who wrote it but thank them every year.  All those who perished in the World Trade Centers, the Pentagon, and Shanksville, PA were very much-loved and are greatly missed.  May they all Rest in Peace and let us NEVER FORGET!

 

‘MEET ME IN THE STAIRWELL’

You say you will never forget where you were when you heard the news on              September 11, 2001.

Neither will I.

I was on the 110th floor in a smoke-filled room with a man who called his wife to say ‘Good-Bye.’ I  held his fingers steady as he dialed. I gave him the peace to say, ‘Honey, I am not going to make it, but it is OK..I am ready to go.’

I was with his wife when he called as she fed breakfast to their children. I held her up as she tried to understand his words and as she realized he wasn’t coming home that night.

I was in the stairwell of the 23rd floor when a woman cried out to Me for help. ‘I have been knocking on the door of your heart for 50 years!’ I said. ‘Of course I will show you the way home – only believe in Me now.’

I was at the base of the building with the Priest ministering to the injured and devastated souls. I took him home to tend to his Flock in Heaven. He heard my voice and answered.

I was on all four of those planes, in every seat, with every prayer. I was with the crew as they were overtaken. I was in the very hearts of the believers there, comforting and assuring them that their faith has saved them.

I was in Texas , Virginia , California , Michigan , Afghanistan .

I was standing next to you when you heard the terrible news.

Did you sense Me?

I want you to know that I saw every face. I knew every name – though not all know Me. Some met Me for the first time on the 86th floor.

Some sought Me with their last breath.

Some couldn’t hear Me calling to them through the smoke and flames; ‘Come to Me… this way… take my hand.’ Some chose, for the final time, to ignore Me.

But, I was there.

I did not place you in the Tower that day. You may not know why, but I do.. However, if you were there in that explosive moment in time, would you have reached for Me?

Sept. 11, 2001, was not the end of the journey for you . But someday your journey will end. And I will be there for you as well. Seek Me now while I may be found.. Then, at any moment, you know you are ‘ready to go.’

I will be in the stairwell of your final moments.

God

Where were you when the world stopped turning?

 

Never Again and God Bless America!

The Blood on Obama’s Hands

By Judson Phillips via Tea Party Nation

Mark Halperin of Time shocked people this weekend by saying, “the media is very susceptible to doing what the Obama campaign wants.”   The media has gone from simply being biased in favor of the liberal to being an outright media arm for the Democrat Party and the Obama Reelection campaign.

 

The media should be telling the story of the blood on the hands of Barack Obama.  They are not.  What is this shocking story the media is not telling us?

The blood on Obama’s hands comes from the American troops in Afghanistan.

Obama’s policy for American troops in Afghanistan can be summarized as, “Let them be targets.”

Obama has American troops in Afghanistan dying or being maimed for no good purpose.  He has no objectives here, other than not to lose Afghanistan before the election so it will not be blamed on him.

In the last eleven days, there have been nine attacks on American or NATO soldiers by Afghan soldiers or Taliban infiltrators posing as Afghan soldiers.  These are the so-called insider attacks.

What has been the response of the Obama Regime to more Americans coming home in flag-draped coffins?

They are pressuring Afghanistan to do more “screening” of recruits.  Gee, Afghanistan is a 7th Century nation.  How are they going to screen people?  There are no central records in Afghanistan.   How are they going to screen?  Unless there is a new way to start reading minds, screening in Afghanistan means nothing.

At least there is one sane military officer in Afghanistan.  General John Allen, the NATO commander in Afghanistan has now ordered all coalition military forces to carry loaded weapons with them at all times.

Afghanistan is a combat zone with the enemy carrying out unconventional attacks.  Which begs the obvious question: Why the hell weren’t our soldiers carrying loaded weapons all of the time before now?

This is the problem with Afghanistan.  We are treating it like a social welfare problem instead of a military campaign.

The first rule of war is you fight to win.   While George W. Bush deserves some of the blame for this, an overwhelming amount of the blame now goes to Barack Obama.  You do not send Americans to die in a war you have no intention of winning.

What is Barack Obama’s goal in Afghanistan?  It is to get out by 2014.  It is not to win.  It is simply to cut and run and have Afghanistan go down as another loss to America, much as Vietnam was lost.

Obama does have another strategy.  According to Aaron Klein and Brenda Elliot in their book, Fool Me Twice, Obama’s strategy is to reduce and remake the American military into an international social services agency.   Obama’s Afghan strategy not only destroys the morale of America’s military causing many patriotic Americans to leave the service instead of making it a career, it also destroys a lot of equipment that will never be replaced.

Obama has no clear-cut strategy in Afghanistan, other than to lose.

The Obama Regime has saddled our troops with rules of engagement that do not result in successful operations against the enemy and do result in casualties.  American soldiers are often forced to choose between violating those rules of engagement on the battlefield, surviving and risking a court martial or dying.

The real problem is Obama will not identify our enemy.   Islam is the enemy.  The Islamists hate us because we are not Muslims.

During World War 2, we pacified Germany after the war by de-Nazifying it.   We did the same to Italy.   We did the same to Japan.

Why aren’t we doing this to Afghanistan?

Instead of de-Islamifying Afghanistan, we bend over backwards to accommodate our enemies.  We are using taxpayer dollars to build Mosques where the Taliban then come and recruit new fighters to attack America.

Afghanistan is not worth one more American life.  Fortunately, six months from now we will have a new commander in chief.   Then the military will have a commander who supports them.

And not one who simply views them as political props.

Read more at Tea Party Nation.

The latest casualty of Obama’s war

Posted by Judson Phillips via Tea Party Nation

 

Who is it?

It is Staff Sergeant Robert Bales.

That’s right.  He is the man who is accused of and in fact killed 16 civilians in Afghanistan.

Since Obama has taken over running the war, he has imposed rules of engagement on our troops that have made them little more than targets.  He has made it clear that our troops are doing little more than marking time in Afghanistan.  They have been told they cannot win.   And if they actually fight the enemy, they could be prosecuted.  So they have to go through the motions.  They have to watch while the Afghans they are supposed to be helping turn on them and shoot them.

It is no wonder that Staff Sergeant Bales snapped.  Michael Yon predicted something like this would happen months ago.

Robert Bales has become the face of what is wrong in Afghanistan.

The Defense Secretary has already announced he believes that Bales will be tried and the government will seek the death penalty.

For Staff Sergeant Bales to be executed would be a travesty of justice.

However, the good news is, the chances of him being executed are remote.

When Bales goes to Court Martial, he will raise a mental health defense.  Since the death penalty is a potential punishment, Bales cannot plead guilty under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but must go to trial.

Bales may try for an NGRI defense.  NGRI is not guilty by reason of insanity.   If he does not have a straight up NGRI defense, his lawyers will try another form of mental health defense.  Since he will be charged with premeditated murder, a mental health issue could negate premeditation and allow the jury to find him guilty of a lesser offense.  Even if he is found guilty of premeditated murder the mental health defense could keep him off of the military’s death row.

It will take a couple of years for Bales’ case to go to trial.  Unfortunately Bales will quickly fade from the public view until his trial.  That is unfortunate because the public needs to be debating and discussing what is going on in Afghanistan.

Our men and women in Afghanistan are not being allowed to win the war they were sent to fight.   Our men and women are bleeding and dying for what?

We should have learned long ago that we never send our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines into harm’s way unless we are going to win that war.

Obama does not want us to win the war.  He wants us to lose.

Robert Bales is one of the faces of what is wrong with the war in Afghanistan.

Barack Obama is the face of losing the war in Afghanistan.

For more information click here.

Obama’s More Deferential to Afghan Muslims Than American Catholics

By Terence P. Jeffrey via CNSNews

Here is a simple question with an obvious answer: Is President Barack  Obama more deferential to the religious sensibilities of Afghan Muslims or the religious freedom of American Catholics?

The answer:  Obama is more deferential to the religious sensibilities of Muslims in  Afghanistan than to the religious freedom of Catholics in the United States.

Let’s stipulate a point of principle out front:  People should not burn Korans, period. To burn a Koran, whether as a  premeditated act of spite or as a boneheaded mistake, is wrong.

That  being said, the Korans burned at Bagram Air Force in Afghanistan were  burned as the result of a boneheaded mistake–not as a conscious effort  to affront Muslims.

Here in the United States, President  Obama’s decision to order Roman Catholics to act against the teachings of  their faith by forcing Catholics to buy insurance that pays  for sterilizations, artificial contraceptives and abortifacients was not  made by mistake. Obama did it with long and careful premeditation–fully  understanding that the Catholic Church would (correctly) perceive the regulation as a very serious and direct attack on  the free exercise of religion by Catholics.

We know this  because from August to February, the Catholic bishops of the United  States repeatedly warned the Obama administration directly and through  public statements that the administration’s sterilization-contraception-abortifacient mandate was an  attack on the religious liberty of Catholics and that Catholics would  adamantly oppose it as an attack on their religious liberty.

In  official comments delivered to HHS on Aug. 31, the Catholic bishops  said: “Indeed, such nationwide government coercion of religious people  and groups to sell, broker, or purchase ‘services’ to which they have a  moral or religious objection represents an unprecedented attack on  religious liberty.”

On Sept. 30, the Catholic bishops  distributed a call-to-action sheet in church bulletins across the nation.  It said that Obama’s sterilization-contraception-abortfacient mandate  “poses an unprecedented threat to individual and institutional religious  freedom” and called on Catholics to contact HHS to urge the  administration to rescind the mandate in its entirety.

In  January, most of America’s Catholic bishops asked that their parish  priests read a letter from the pulpit denouncing Obama’s regulation. The  letter said in part: “In so ruling, the Administration has cast aside the  First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to  Catholics our Nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of  religious liberty.”

“We cannot–we will not–comply with this unjust law,” the bishops said.

Obama  did not respond by apologizing to Catholics. Instead, he responded  by finalizing the regulation, thus moving forward with an unambiguous  effort to deny Catholics the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the  Constitution that Obama swore to uphold.

Bishop David  Zubik of Pittsburgh summed up Obama’s action this way: “The Obama  administration has just told the Catholics of the United States,‘To Hell  with you!’ There is no other way to put it.”

“This is  government by fiat that attacks the rights of everyone–not only  Catholics; not only people of all religion,” said Bishop Zubik. “At no  other time in memory or history has there been such a governmental  intrusion on freedom not only with regard to religion, but  even across-the-board with all citizens.”

In a letter to  Americans serving in the military, including those serving in  Afghanistan, Archbishop Timothy Broglio, who leads the Roman Catholic  Archdiocese for the Military Services, summed up Obama’s regulation this  way: “It is a blow to a freedom that you have fought to defend and for  which you have seen your buddies fall in battle.”

The Obama  Defense Department tried to censor Archbishop Broglio’s  letter—thus compounding one violation of the First Amendment (abridging  the free exercise of religion) with another (abridging the freedom of  speech).

As outspoken as they were in declaring that the  Obama administration was violating the rights of Catholics with its  regulation, the Catholic bishops did not call anybody into the streets.  They did not incite riots. They did not sanction or condone any kind of  violence or destruction of property. They simply called for this: That  Americans should use the constitutional rights we still have to  peacefully address our government and ask that our right to the free  exercise of our religion be respected and restored by those who have  sworn an oath to God to do so.

The peaceful, articulate,  intellectually and morally powerful pleas of faithful Catholics in this  country—and of those of other denominations who have joined with  Catholics in calling for respect for religious liberty—have been ignored  by President Obama even as they have been distorted and mocked by some of  his allies in Congress.

How different was the administration’s response to the outrage of Muslims in Afghanistan?

After  it was revealed earlier this week that American forces at Bagram Air  Base in Afghanistan had mistakenly burned some Korans, Gen. John Allen,  the U.S.commander in that country, recorded a video profusely  apologizing to Muslims and announcing that he had launched an  investigation of the incident.

“To the noble people of  Afghanistan: I have ordered an investigation into a report I received  during the night that ISAF personnel at Bagram Air Base improperly  disposed of a large number of Islamic religious materials which included  Korans,” said Gen.Jones. “When we learned of these actions, we  immediately intervened and stopped them. The materials recovered will be  properly handled by appropriate religious authorities.

“We  are thoroughly investigating the incident and we are taking steps to  ensure this does not ever happen again,” said Gen. Jones. “I assure  you–I promise you–this was NOT intentional in any way.

“I  offer my sincere apologies for any offense this may have caused, to the  president of Afghanistan,the government of the Islamic Republic of  Afghanistan, and most importantly, to the noble people of Afghanistan,”  said Gen. Jones.

“I would like to thank the local Afghan  people who helped us identify the error, and who worked with us to  immediately take corrective action,” he said.

Following  the general’s apology there were demonstrations in the streets across  Afghanistan, and a man in an Afghan Army uniform shot and killed two American  soldiers.

Then President Obama dispatched an ambassador  with a letter to Afghan President Hamid Karzai to personally apologize  for the mistaken, boneheaded burning of the Korans.

The Taliban responded by calling for American troops to be killed, beaten and captured.

Obama,  meanwhile, is moving forward with his presidential command that American  Catholics must act against their faith by purchasing coverage for  sterilizations, contraceptives and abortifacients–drugs that take the  lives of innocent unborn children.

It is plain as day:  Obama is more deferential to the religious sensibilities of Muslims in  Afghanistan than he is to the constitutionally protected religious  liberty of Catholics in the United States of America.

See more “Right Views, Right Now”

 H/T Libby Harding

Obama’s Disastrous Islamist Outreach

Posted by  in Front Page Magazine

Logo Muslim Brotherhood

For three years, Barack Obama’s engagement policy with Islamists, most notably in Iran, has proven dangerous. The Iranian regime exploited Obama’s show of weakness by moving ahead aggressively with its nuclear weapon program. Now the Obama administration is doubling down on its disastrous engagement policy. It is serving as the midwife to the takeover of Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood and of Afghanistan by the Taliban. And there is a distressing link between the two.

A front page article in the New York Times on January 5th reported what has been obvious since Obama took office. The administration has sought to “forge close ties” with the Muslim Brotherhood – “an organization once viewed as irreconcilably opposed to United States interests.”

Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who is chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and recently joined with the ambassador to Egypt, Anne W. Patterson, for a meeting with top leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood’s political party, compared the Obama administration’s outreach to President Ronald Reagan’s arms negotiations with the Soviet Union. “The United States needs to deal with the new reality,” Senator Kerry said. “And it needs to step up its game.”

That is a ridiculous analogy. Reagan negotiated with the Soviet Union, but never waivered from his belief that the Soviet Union was an evil empire whose ideology must be defeated.  The Obama administration’s outreach to the Muslim Brotherhood is based on its mistaken belief that it has reformed in a way that brings it much closer to the Western model of a pluralistic party committed to individual freedoms.

To the contrary, when push comes to shove, the Muslim Brotherhood’s dominance of the civil government in Egypt, by virtue of its parliamentary election victories, will mean the imposition of sharia law and jihad against infidels. Nothing the Obama administration is trying to do through its aggressive overtures, including recent high-level meetings with Muslim Brotherhood officials, will change that fact.  Jihad is embedded in its history, as evidenced by the violent Islamic jihadist organizations such as Hamas that it spawned. And let’s not forget that it was the Muslim Brotherhood that gave Osama bin Laden’s former deputy and current leader of al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, his start.

Jihad remains in the Muslim Brotherhood’s DNA. Its motto includes the words: “Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” The Brotherhood’s new offices are emblazoned with its emblem of crossed swords.

The Obama administration’s ostensible rationale for engaging with the Muslim Brotherhood is that it is simply bowing to political reality. Based on the results of Egyptian parliamentary elections so far, the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party looks set to play a dominant role in Egypt’s new parliament and in the civil government to which Obama administration officials are pressing Egypt’s military to hand over the reins of power. But, in fact, the Obama administration is not simply being reactive. It helped bring about what is now unfolding in Egypt by throwing Egyptian president Mubarak under the bus and lending its hand to legitimize the false image of the Muslim Brotherhood as some sort of alternative moderate advocate of peace, pluralistic democracy and freedom for all Egyptians.

At the same time, in order to find a face-saving way out of the quagmire in Afghanistan in which the Obama administration finds itself after escalating the war there while simultaneously announcing a timetable for withdrawal, the administration is pursuing talks with the Taliban. It is using an untrustworthy Muslim Brotherhood connection to do so.

According to a report appearing in the Indian newspaper Hindu, diplomatic sources have said that Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who is regarded as the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, has emerged as a key mediator in secret talks between the U.S. and the Taliban:

Mr. al-Qaradawi helped draw a road map for a deal between the Taliban and the United States, aimed at giving the superpower a face-saving political settlement ahead of its planned withdrawal from Afghanistan which is due to begin in 2014.

In return for the release of prisoners still held by the United States at Guantanamo Bay, the lifting of United Nations sanctions on its leadership and its recognition as a legitimate political group, the Taliban was expected to agree to sever its links to transnational organisations like al-Qaeda, end violence and eventually share power with the Afghan government.

But what can the Taliban negotiators really deliver, even if it were serious in wanting to reach a peaceful settlement? There is no indication that these negotiators are in a position to turn over the Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar and his inner circle, who harbored al Qaeda when the Taliban was in control of Afghanistan. Nor will they be able to diffuse the growing power of the new generation of Taliban commanders ideologically committed to al-Qaeda’s vision.

The Obama administration’s idea of negotiations is to consider releasing Taliban detainees who are likely to return to jihad against U.S. forces without even any commitment reported to date that the Taliban would return the U.S. soldier it kidnapped. The only concrete step the Taliban negotiators have reportedly agreed to undertake in the short term is to set up an office in Qatar for talks.

It’s bad enough that the Obama administration is even considering talks on such terms – a prescription for appeasement. The fact that the Obama administration is foolish enough to trust al-Qaradawi as an intermediary with the Taliban is mind-boggling. Have they not read what this jihadist has been preaching?

The Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual leader’s call for jihad extends not only to the conquest of Israel and the killing of Jews. It includes the conquest of Europe and beyond.

In 2003 al-Qaradawi issued a fatwa declaring that

Islam will return to Europe as a victorious conqueror after having been expelled twice. This time it will not be conquest by the sword, but by preaching and spreading [Islamic] ideology […] The future belongs to Islam […] The spread of Islam until it conquers the entire world and includes both East and West marks the beginning of the return of the Islamic Caliphate [.]

A 2009 State Department cable, published by WikiLeaks, quoted a sermon by al-Qaradawi in which he condemned Jews for spreading “corruption in the land” and called for “the revenge of Allah” upon them. And he didn’t spare the United States. He condemned the United States for acting “like a god in this world” and cautioned the U.S. and the West that “according to the law of Allah, they should collapse.”

Yet this is the man in whom the Obama administration places its trust to help mediate a peace with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Just as the Obama administration trusts al-Qaradawi, the spiritual guide for the Muslim Brotherhood, to help it escape the mess in Afghanistan, the Obama administration has come to believe in the good intentions of the Muslim Brotherhood itself in how it plans to govern in Egypt.

Interestingly, President Obama himself, during his 2011 Super Bowl Day interview with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, wanted viewers to know he was concerned “there are strains of their [Muslim Brotherhood] ideology that are anti-U.S.” But he dodged the question whether the Muslim Brotherhood represented a threat to the U.S., saying that they were only “one faction in Egypt” that lacked majority support.

Despite that brief glimmer of Super Bowl Day reality about the Muslim Brotherhood coming from Obama himself, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said just a few days before Obama’s interview that any new Egyptian government “has to include a whole host of important non-secular actors that give Egypt a strong chance to continue to be [a] stable and reliable partner,” a remark most likely directed at U.S. support for the inclusion of the Muslim Brotherhood in any future government.

In February 2011, U.S. director of National Intelligence James Clapper said during a House Intelligence Committee hearing that the Muslim Brotherhood “pursued social ends, a betterment of the political order in Egypt, et cetera….. There is no overarching agenda, particularly in pursuit of violence, at least internationally.” However, his characterization of the Brotherhood as “largely secular” went a bit too far, even for the Obama administration.

In June 2011, well before the recent parliamentary elections, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explained the Obama administration’s decision to ignore the “anti-U.S.” strains in the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology and engage them in concert with its policy to deal with “peaceful” organizations. She said that “We welcome, therefore, dialogue with those Muslim Brotherhood members who wish to talk with us.”

Now, with the election results pointing towards a possible Muslim Brotherhood majority in the parliament, the Obama administration is throwing caution to the winds and wholeheartedly embracing the Muslim Brotherhood – “anti-U.S. strains” and all. It is willing to accept at face value assurances by Muslim Brotherhood officials that its lawmakers will reach out across the Egyptian political spectrum in order to build a modern democracy committed to the individual freedoms of all Egyptians.

The Obama administration evidently swallows the propaganda put out by the Muslim Brotherhood for the benefit of gullible Western governments and opinion leaders or does not care one way or the other whether it is true. For example, the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party head, Mohamed Mursi, said that while his Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated party uses “Islam as the basis of our party which means that our general framework is Islamic sharia,” they “don’t issue religious rules in individual cases.” Mursi also said that “All political forces and intellectuals in Egypt, regardless of their political and religious allegiances, will take part in writing the constitution.”

These are comforting words to the Obama administration, reinforced further by the Muslim Brotherhood agreement to an 11-clause declaration of principles known as the “Al-Azhar Document around the future of Egypt.” Al-Azhar is Egypt’s 1,000-year-old seat of Islamic scholarship, which Obama referred to as the “beacon of Islamic learning” during the 2009 speech he delivered there to the Muslim world. Muslim Brotherhood members attended Obama’s speech, by the way, at the invitation of the Obama administration.

The Al-Azhar Document is intended to serve as a guiding framework for the constituent assembly that will be in charge of drafting Egypt’s new constitution. This document, which was read on national television on June 20, 2011 by Al-Azhar’s Grand Imam, Shaykh Ahmad al-Tayyib, purportedly commits Egypt’s intellectual, religious and civil political elite to establishing an open democratic society in Egypt that respects the right of “other divine religions’ followers to appeal to their religions in their personal issues.”

But there is a big catch. The Al-Azhar Document’s first clause stipulates that “the modern and democratic state” it has in mind would operate “in accordance with the true Islamic aspects.” It goes on to say that “Islamic jurisprudence is the main source for the legislation.”

True democracy, which respects the freedom of all its citizens, is inherently inconsistent with “Islamic jurisprudence” that is based on Islamist supremacy and sharia law. While the Al-Azhar Document pays lip service to granting some measure of freedom of expression, it does so only within the strict confines of Islamic principles and morals.

The Al-Azhar Document also envisions an expansive role for Al-Azhar itself. It is to be the institution Egyptians must refer to “in order to define the way in which the state relates to religion (taḥdīd ‘alāqat al-dawla bi’l-dīn) and to clarify the foundations of the correct siyāsa shar‘iyya that it is necessary to pursue.”

This will invest the unelected Al-Azhar Imam Shaykh Ahmad al-Tayyib with significant power, since his institution will be arbiter of “the true Islamic aspects” governing Egypt going forward. Secularist writer Salah Elissa argues that “if new laws need the consent of al-Azhar, then that immediately means we are in a religious (not civil) state.” The power of the Muslim Brotherhood’s political party in the new parliament will help ensure that al-Azhar’s decisions do not stray too far from the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamist agenda.

Where does al-Azhar Imam Tayyib stand on core democratic freedoms such as freedom of expression?  As one indication, he praised Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s landmark fatwa banning insults to early historical Islamic figures, particularly the first two Muslim caliphs and A’isha, child-wife of Prophet Muhammad.

Indeed, Tayyib admires the Iranian regime and its terrorist proxy Hezbollah. “I hope relations between Iran and the Arab countries will improve, and the good neighbor policy as well as brotherly ties on the one hand and the fight against the common threat against Muslim nations on the other hand will improve these relations,” al-Tayyib said after meeting with Iranian and Hezbollah officials last July.

The Muslim Brotherhood leadership agrees with Tayyib. Kamal al-Halbavi, a senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood, expressed gratitude to the Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei for his support of the Egyptian revolution and said he hoped that Egypt would have a “good government, like the Iranian government, and a good president like Mr. Ahmadinejad, who is very brave.”

The Obama administration is trying to deceive the American people into thinking that Islamism – whether the Taliban or Muslim Brotherhood flavor – is anything other than our ideological enemy. The administration may not be able to stop either the Taliban or the Muslim Brotherhood from eventually taking control of Afghanistan and Egypt, respectively. But actively helping them along, as the administration is doing, recklessly jeopardizes the security of the American people and the cause of freedom everywhere.

Missing the Mark — Again (Media Hysteria over Alleged Marine Video)

By Oliver North

Our so-called mainstream media have launched a new anti-military feeding frenzy. The furor is over a crude 39-second video showing four Marines apparently urinating on the bodies of three dead Taliban combatants. In hysteric rhetoric akin to “news reports” on the 2004 Abu Ghraib photos, hordes of print and broadcast “correspondents” rushed to describe the viral video, which surfaced Jan. 11, as evidence of an “atrocity” and “desecration” that reflects the “depravity” of our military in general and the U.S. Marines in particular. As usual, the effort to denigrate our armed forces means that the potentates of the press ignored far more important stories.

 

On Wednesday, before Marine Corps or U.S. officials in Afghanistan could even verify the origin or authenticity of the video, it was up on more than a dozen websites and produced an instant firestorm. Marine Commandant Gen. James Amos described what appears on the video as “not consistent with our Corps values” and ordered an immediate investigation of “every aspect of the filmed event to determine the facts.” He pledged, “Once the investigation and preliminary inquiry are complete and the facts have been determined, then the Marine Corps will take the appropriate next steps.”

That’s what should happen. But that wasn’t enough for the masters of the media. Within hours of the video’s appearing on the Internet, “reporters” launched a global race to interview any and all who were willing to express righteous outrage over “the actions of our servicemen” and thereby disparage the reputations of the millions of soldiers, sailors, airmen, guardsmen and Marines who have served honorably and courageously in more than a decade of war.

By Thursday, with no new facts yet in hand, White House spokesman Jay Carney felt compelled to tell the world that President Barack Obama finds the event to be “deplorable” and “reprehensible.” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s spokesman described the “hideous” incident as “egregious, disgusting behavior.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton found a microphone to express “total dismay at the story concerning our Marines.”

And as we found with Abu Ghraib and Newsweek magazine’s phony 2005 story about a Quran’s being flushed down a toilet at the Guantanamo Bay detention center, blanket criticism of U.S. military personnel quickly goes global. In Kabul, Afghanistan, before the nationality of any of the apparently dead enemy combatants could be confirmed, President Hamid Karzai accused “American soldiers” of “desecrating dead bodies of three Afghans.”

From neighboring Pakistan, Taliban leaders — who never have denounced the murder, torture or beheading of a single Christian and have killed thousands of innocent civilians with roadside bombs — condemned the video as “barbaric” and claimed: “No religion that follows a holy text would accept such conduct. This inhuman act reveals their real face to the world.”

Absent from any of these oft-repeated excerpts is any recognition that the video in question apparently involves just four individuals — five if you count the person holding the camera. Yet even before the perpetrators in the video could be identified by the Marines, the entire U.S. military is indicted once again by media elites for the egregious deeds of a few, without mention that such acts never are condoned by any American commander.

Prolonged commentary and repetitious reports on what investigators now call the “urine incident” have also spiked and displaced stories that warrant extensive coverage. Where are the in-depth “good news” reports on U.S. Navy sailors and Coast Guardsmen putting themselves at risk to rescue Iranian seamen from pirates and a sinking vessel? With Tehran racing to acquire nuclear weapons and threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz, weren’t Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visits this week to Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba worth more attention than a brief mention? In these perilous times, doesn’t it matter that preparations are under way for “Austere Challenge 12” — the largest and “most significant military exercise ever conducted by the U.S. and Israel”?

These important events received scant notice in the hysteria over “the video.” This indicates an absence of judgment and perspective by those who determine what’s “newsworthy” in today’s “instant news” environment. Members of the mainstream media inevitably overhype any negative story — true or false — about even a single member of the U.S. armed forces and tarnish all who serve. This blatant anti-military bias is especially evident when producers and editors repeatedly make such atypical events the “lead story” and accord these rare incidents headline treatment for days on end. They must know that demonizing our troops with such nonstop “coverage” is far more effective at demoralizing a nation at war — and destructive to those who fight it — than losing any battle.