Let's make a deal!

"Part of the success in Iraq involved reaching out to people that we would consider to be Islamic fundamentalists," said Obama, "but who were willing to work with us." That's from President Obama's interview with the New York Times on March 7, 2009. I guess he didn't get the memo about Islamic fundamentalism not being the kind of ideology that lends itself well to compromise and deal making. Of course, when you are The One and operate on a higher plane closer to God (and Muhammad, presumably), you come to really believe that your words are capable of doing the impossible -- the things that mere mortals (like George W. Bush and other conservatives) could never possibly do. Barack Obama belongs to the Monte Hall school of foreign policy: if you have five hair clips and a thimble in your purse, we can certainly make a deal!

The truth in Iraq, of course, is that we reached out to religious leaders who wanted to restore security and who had tired of the radical violence of Al Qaeda in Iraq and other Islamic fundamentalist groups. We weren't working with the radicals who were beheading hostages and killing American troops. Rather, the surge (which Obama opposed, still can't bring himself to call a "success" and apparently doesn't fully understand) convinced Shia and Sunni tribal leaders that it was a better bet to cooperate with us than with the Islamic fascists who didn't care how much innocent Iraqi blood they had to shed in accomplishing their goal of a totally lawless, unstable Iraq. These tribal leaders made a rational calculation that it was better to be "with us" than "against us" -- and helped to turn the tide againt both Al Qaeda and some of the more radical internal militias that were working to destabilize the country. We didn't sit down with Al Qaeda in Iraq and "work together" as the President apparently believes.

This is typical idealistic nonsense from the new president -- who firmly believes that symbols backed by the power of his presence can turn the world inside out into a better, kinder place. We've now dropped the term "war on terror" so as not to further upset the Islamic world (which would love us if we just spoke nicely to them), we're pulling out of Gitmo and making efforts to join the UN Human Rights Commission -- the sole purpose of which is to bash Israel while giving a pass to Iran, Syria, Libya, North Korea and other human rights abusers. Its all in the effort to change the "tone" of our dealings with the world. Lots of soft music and dim lighting.

Unfortunately, this president is full of intellectual hubris, and is absolutely, positively certain that he knows best. He believes that Islamic fundamentalists are people he can "work with", as if they are folks at the local PTA meeting who are parsing the menu for school lunches. He doesn't seem to understand that Islamic fundamentalism is the heart of a radical belief system that seeks to create a world Islamic state governed under strict Sharia law. It represents a total rejection of Western culture, society and religion. It is a radical, revolutionary ideology. You can't "make a deal" with those who want to utterly destroy you.

Muslim Brotherhood seeks US downfall

I recently attended a private briefing by a former FBI counter-terrorism agent who retired early after being marginalized on the job because his concerns about radical Islam were deemed politically incorrect. We'll call him Don Doe. He now works for an outside group, advising leaders at the federal level and seeking to alert local law enforcement about domestic subversion. Doe's partner is a former expert on such issues for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who was also fired from his position for being too insensitive. He had run afoul of a key DOD aide, Hasham Islam, who accused him of being a Christian zealot or "extremist with a pen," according to defense officials.

Doe's presentation to my group was based on years of intelligence work as well as strategic documents which they obtained during an FBI raid from a hidden sub-basement in the Washington-area home of a Muslim leader -- many excerpts of which he showed us. The latter became official court records in last year's Dallas terrorism trial. Much of Doe's information actually comes from published newspaper and TV stories, though these tend to be ignored by the dominant media and high officials. He argued six main conclusions:

(1) Islam in general is a much bigger threat than commonly accepted.

(2) Through its unchangeable holy book, the Koran, Islam mandates, in unqualified terms, active efforts to convert non-Islamic people or to subjugate them and gain submission to Allah.

(3) Religion and politics are so fundamentally tied together in Islam that Muslims cannot peacefully co-exist with other people under a different legal system.

(4) Consequently there are no "moderate" true Muslims.

(5) There is a very well organized movement in America to install Islam and Sharia law.

(6) The Muslims are winning the propaganda war and have positioned their leaders very well and gained tremendous positions and influence in our popular culture while distorting the public perception of their intent while our leadership grossly underestimates the threats.

Don Doe's major points in support of these conclusions were as follows:

The Koran and the Muslim "religion" is more than a religion, it is a complete way of life and the Koran dictates a legal, political, religious and social system that is completely intertwined. One cannot be a true Muslim without believing in Sharia law, and only Sharia. Separation of church and state is not possible in the Muslim world. Islam has had an essentially political character from its very foundation to the present day. An intimate association between religion and politics, between power and cult, marks a principal distinction between Islam and other religions. In traditional Islam and therefore also in resurgent fundamentalist Islam, God is the sole source of sovereignty. God is the head of the state. The state is God's state. The army is God's army. The treasury is God's treasury, and the enemy, of course, is God's enemy.

The clear, expressed, fundamental goal of Islam is world domination. "Jihad" only means "struggle" in propaganda to the West -- in the Koran, it clearly means "Holy War".

Despite propaganda and popular media and liberal advocacy, there are not many interpretations of the Koran -- it is taken by Muslims as Allah's direct words (like the Ten Commandments given directly by God -- word for word). It is quite clear that killing infidels is encouraged and being devious or deceptive in pursuit of Jihad is holy work. There are translations of the Koran devised for Western consumption that distort true provisions and make it appear much more peaceful. There are inconsistencies in the Koran but there is a clear method of interpretation called "abrogation" which means that the provisions which were set out later in time (as Mohammed made his way from Mecca to Medina) completely overrule prior passages. The peaceful passages all came earlier in time, the later, and controlling provisions, are very hostile. Many people who try to understand the Koran and Islam do not understand the timeline of its creation and the fact that the passages are sequenced by length of writing, not chronologically, so they can't easily decipher the controlling passages and see it as inconsistent and subject to many interpretations. There is one university in Egypt that is the recognized ultimate world wide authority on the Koran and Sharia law and it's interpretations and translations are not questioned by the 85% of the World's Muslims who are Sunni disciples.

Virtually every Muslim organization in the US traces its leadership to the Muslim Brotherhood which is working towards world domination (I know, this sounds like a wild "conspiracy theory" -- but the evidence and facts Doe laid out were compelling).

The Muslims are winning the propaganda war and imposing their standards on the West and we, in our spirit of tolerance, are falling right in line -- from trivial things like foot-baths in public places to allowing Muslims to wear full headdresses in banks and through airport security (in an essential disguise that would not be tolerated if worn by anyone else) to allowing Muslim combat training compounds in the US. The Danish cartoon controversy (over which people died) is another example as is the hysteria that accompanies anyone who defaces the Koran or a picture of Mohammed.

The Saudis contribute over $4 billion per year to Islamic expansion (for both violent terrorism and less violent training, indoctrination and insertion). This is four times what the USSR spent on similar efforts at the height of the Cold War.

These terrorist groups often describe their actions as Islamic jihad. Self-proclaimed sentences of punishment or death issued publicly as threats often come in the form of fatwas (Islamic legal judgments). Both Muslims and non-Muslims have been among the targets and victims, but threats against Muslims are often issued as takfir (a declaration that a person, group or institution that describes itself as Muslim has in fact left Islam and thus is a traitor). This is an implicit death threat as the punishment for apostasy (conversion away from Islam) is swift death under Sharia law.

Federal leadership is reluctant to act against these Islamic organizations due to political correctness concerns and the threats of lawsuits by CAIR and others. Doe said that Muslim groups will demand concessions on matters by saying, "You have to do this; you have to do this or I will be offended." The group CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which protests and sues every chance they get to enforce acceptance of Islamic laws and value (such as colleges forced to have separate swimming times for Islamic men and women so not to offend Muslims), is actually a front for the terror group Hamas.

"They're having great success of implementing Shariah law, I could give you a thousand examples," the former FBI agent said.

He also said to watch what is happening in Great Britain, where Islamic radicalism has taken root. He noted that a member of the Dutch Parliament was recently denied entry into the United Kingdom for fear that it would offend Muslims. "They denied him access while at the same time, Islamic law is being instituted on the streets of Great Britain."

In this country, Doe gave the example of Grover Norquist as a prominent conservative activist, married to a Palestinian woman, who has gotten many prominent Muslim leaders into close relationships with high ranking US officials, including Clinton and Bush.

"If you are looking to DHS, the FBI and Congress to solve this," the briefer said, "you're going to be woefully disappointed." FBI agents in the field "are working good cases," but the FBI leadership "is unwilling to do what the agents are asking them to do, which is to pony up and use some courage and start stepping on these people."

We were told of a terror group is called Jamaat ul-Fuqra, known here as Muslims of America, which is a front organization for Pakistani Islamic cleric Sheikh Mubarak Ali Shah Gilani.

Muslims of America has several training compounds, one is near Dover, Tennessee. They cite a Justice Department document from 2006 that exposed 35 compounds in the U.S., which the group alleges are used for terrorist training. The document was marked "Dissemination Restricted to Law Enforcement" and was not supposed to be released to the public.

There are claims that all copies of Sheik Muburak Gilani's terrorist training video, "Soldiers of Allah," had been confiscated and sealed except for one copy. In the documentary, Gilani is shown saying "We are fighting to destroy the enemy. We are dealing with evil at its roots and its roots are America." The training video also shows men taught how to use AK-47s, rocket launchers, and machine guns, as well as how to kidnap and kill Americans, how to conduct sabotage and subversive operations, and instructions on the use mortars and explosives. They want to have Jamaat ul-Fuqra placed on the State Department's Foreign Terrorist Organization Watch List, which would shut down the camps.

Don Doe said that "cowardice" has prevented officials from taking action about the camps scattered across the country.

"We see at the local and state level, a lot of anger towards the federal government, and that anger is well placed."

"We can't ignore it, it's not going to go away," concluded the former FBI agent.

The author is a businessman and investor who studies national security issues. His pen name honors the Gallic leader who saved Europe from Muslim conquest 1300 years ago.

Obama the wanderer

I've been struggling over the last few weeks to put my finger on what bothers me so much about Barack Obama. Yes, I know that sounds strange coming from me -- since the pages of my blog are filled with criticisms of the man and his beliefs. But there is something else that is bugging me about the Obama presidency, and it isn't so much about policy as it is a feeling that I have -- a sense of the peripatetic way he is going about this very serious job he has. I've been watching Obama now travel from media event to media event, fluttering about the country with much fanfare but little substance. There is something missing. A sense of steadiness. His devotion to his teleprompter -- already the stuff of scorn and ridicule -- is unsettling. Wasn't he supposed to be the eloquent one who wields a brilliant intellect? The next great communicator?

Peggy Noonan does a masterful job in today's Wall Street Journal of putting my sense of Obama into words -- it's a must read. I've been frustrated with Noonan's commentary about Obama since the election -- she seemed all too willing to accept the notion that Obama really is some new, transcendental leader. But no more. This most recent piece captures perfectly the true essence of the "Obama phenomena" -- full of sound and fury, and signifying nothing:

He is willowy when people yearn for solid, reed-like where they hope for substantial, a bright older brother when they want Papa, cool where they probably prefer warmth. All of which may or may not hurt Barack Obama in time...

Such impressions—coolness, slightness—can come to matter only if they capture or express some larger or more meaningful truth. At the moment they connect, for me, to something insubstantial and weightless in the administration's economic pronouncements and policies. The president seems everywhere and nowhere, not fully focused on the matters at hand. He's trying to keep up with the news cycle with less and less to say.

Our new president is chasing the news cycle, going on Jay Leno and following the cues from the dwarfs in Congress -- that august body of tax cheats and pork spenders where Obama most recently worked. He is engaged in a dance of reaction as opposed to a steady march of action, all at a time when we are dealing with crisis at home and war abroad. This is a time for steeliness and strength, and what we have is unfocused, peripatetic waffling.

Those of you who read this blog know that this comes as no surprise to me. Barack Obama is a man of great salesmanship, who understands how to get you excited to buy something, but then knows nothing of the details once you've purchased it. He's already on to the next sale, the next opportunity to close the deal and show his ability to convince and cajole. His sense of office is a constant campaign -- lots of platitudes and generalities, the kind of stuff that makes crowds clap. He's a jack of all and master of none. And now that he is the master of our collective domain -- the United States of America -- the weaknesses show through with growing clarity and alarm.

As Noonan succinctly argues, Obama has two jobs -- to fix the economy and to keep us safe. On both scores he seems wanting. When Dick Cheney recently criticized Obama for making us less safe in the wake of his recent decisions on Guantanamo and interrogation, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs reacted with disdain. Mr. Cheney is part of a 'Republican cabal.' 'I guess Rush Limbaugh was busy.' This was cheap."

Cheap and wrong. For whatever you wish to say about Dick Cheney, he know of what he speaks -- having seen first hand the post 9/11 intelligence briefings for 8 years. Cheney knows that the threat from Islamic terrorism is a constant drumbeat that can't be wished or talked away. He knows that the Obama administration has not yet found a serious footing on this issue -- and that this puts the country at risk. Noonan says it well:

What can be used will be used. We are a target. Something bad is going to happen—don't we all know this? Are we having another failure of imagination?

A month ago former FBI director Robert Mueller, in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, warned of Mumbai-type terrorist activity, saying a similar attack could happen in a U.S. city. He spoke of the threat of homegrown terrorists who are "radicalized," "indoctrinated" and recruited for jihad. Mumbai should "reinvigorate" U.S. intelligence efforts. The threat is not only from al Qaeda but "less well known groups." This had the hard sound of truth.

Contrast it with the new secretary of homeland security, Janet Napolitano, who, in her first speech and testimony to congress, the same week as Mr. Mueller's remarks, did not mention the word terrorism once. This week in an interview with Der Spiegel, she was pressed: "Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?" Her reply: "I presume there is always a threat from terrorism." It's true she didn't use the word terrorism in her speech, but she did refer to "man-caused" disasters. "This is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear."

Ah. Well this is only a nuance, but her use of language is a man-caused disaster.

Exactly right. Eight years after 9/11 and two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and we are still learning the same lesson over and over again: there are enemies who want to destroy us out there, they are Islamic fundamentalists and they can and will use any weapon they can get their hands on -- from machine guns to suitcase nuclear bombs. It isn't an issue of nuance, it is one of survival. The administration's responses -- as Dick Cheney points out -- should in no way be comforting.

These are the two great issues, the economic crisis and our safety. In the face of them, what strikes one is the weightlessness of the Obama administration, the jumping from issue to issue and venue to venue from day to day. Isaiah Berlin famously suggested a leader is a fox or a hedgehog. The fox knows many things but the hedgehog knows one big thing. In political leadership the hedgehog has certain significant advantages, focus and clarity of vision among them. Most presidents are one or the other. So far Mr. Obama seems neither.

Very well said, Peggy.

BHO sees no evil with 'enemy' semantics

In a dramatic break with longstanding U.S. government policy and established interpretations of the laws of war, the Obama administration announced Friday afternoon (a time when the government announces policy changes it hopes will be ignored or buried by the news media) that it will abandon the use of the term “enemy combatant” as a standard “for the government’s authority to hold detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility.” (DOJ release) This latest flipflop on legal policy regarding Guantanamo detainees is inconsistent with Obama’s recent policy declaration on detainees held in other areas and established norms of international law – as noted in a previous post. More importantly, it leaves those detainees in legal limbo and opens up the status of all detainees for legal challenges on spurious grounds – a litigator’s wet dream, but a national security nightmare. Incoherent:

The Obama/Holder elimination of “enemy combatant” designation leaves detainees in legal limbo:

The Justice Department filing doesn't give the war prisoners a specific designation. They aren't described as POWs or enemy combatants or unprivileged belligerents, all categories of war prisoners under international law.

A Justice Department official said Friday that, for now, they are just considered ''detainees..”

According to accepted norms of international law, there can be no grey area in detainee status:

"There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law,"[4] as stated in the commentary of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) on the Geneva Conventions, "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents.” Commentary: IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1958)

In the United States, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 codified the legal definition of the term “enemy combatant” and invested the U.S. President with broad discretion to determine whether a person may be designated an unlawful enemy combatant. Holder’s Justice Department, in declaring that only the AUMF (Authorization for the Use of Military Force, 18 September 2001) is the basis for detention authority, contravenes the intent of Congress and subsequently enacted legislation.

Inconsistent:

Elimination of the “enemy combatants” designation for detainees at Guantanamo directly contradicts the continued use – in fact, reinforcement – of the term with regard to detainees held in venues other than Guantanamo (cf recent Obama policy declaration re: Bagram detainees).

We move the most dangerous prisoners – those with the most involvement in terrorist plots, the most presumed intelligence value, the most hard-core members of terrorist organizations - to Guantanamo. Suddenly, they’re no longer “enemy combatants” due to a change in venue? This defies all logic.

Dangerous:

This latest policy shift unnecessarily narrows the scope of authority for detention of terrorists AND the scope of activity subjecting individuals to capture and detention. Strictly speaking, the policy limits detention to those directly connected to the 9/11 attacks, or members of “Taliban or al Qaida forces or associated forces.” What about other terrorist activity, either concurrent or subsequent to 9/11? What about terrorists not belonging to the Taliban, al Qaida, or other “associated forces”? Analogies come to mind about lacking authority to combat and capture Japanese soldiers because they didn’t take part in the Pearl Harbor raid (to say nothing of German, Italian, or other Axis forces). Defense attorneys are no doubt salivating at the prospect of suing to free poor “Achmed” because he’s not a card-carrying member of al Qaida (never mind the fact that he blew up dozens of innocents) – however, those of us in the actual profession of Defense (of this country) are left betrayed by the knowledge that the bad guys we captured and sent to Guantanamo might get released on a technicality.

Yep, that’s “consistent with national security” all right.

Geert Wilders marginalized at CPAC

Geert Wilders, the Dutch parliamentarian who faces trial for criticizing Islam and was banned from Britain, was at least allowed into the US for a speech in Washington last month. But the stepchild treatment he received at the Conservative Political Action Conference, and the shrill counter-propaganda distributed that day by Muslim groups, dramatize the creeping cowardice that may eventually leave America as intimidated as Europe and the UK in the face of soft jihad. Mr. Wilders was hosted separately from CPAC by David Horowitz and a few other outside sponsors. He spoke at 6PM on Saturday, Feb. 28, in the Blue Room at the Omni Shoreham Hotel, on the far opposite side of the hotel from the rest of the conference . I suspect that the American Conservative Union, conference host and supposedly the bastion of liberty, was fearful of “offending” the Muslims present.

We lined up for the talk. The doors were closed and two policemen were standing with metal detector wands.

While we were waiting, a pamphlet was distributed to those of us waiting in line. I have included a scan of it below at the following link, with a couple of photos from the occasion.

Let me address the accusations in that pamphlet: The first point blames the Dutch government for

o “redlining Muslim populations into poverty” o “Muslims held hostage to living in Ghettos o “children receiving little educational resources” o “making 43% less wage.

But let us see what Ayaan Hersi Ali says about this:

“I was beginning to see that Muslims in Holland were being allowed to form their own pillar in Dutch society, with their own schools and their own way of life, just like the Catholics or Jews. They were being left politely alone to live in their own world. The idea was that immigrants needed self-respect, which would come from a strong sense of membership in a community. They should be permitted to set up Quranic schools on Dutch soil. There should be government subsidies for Muslim community groups. To force Muslims to adapt to Dutch values was thought to conflict with those values; people ought to be free to believe and behave as they wish.” ( “Infidel”, Ayaan Hersi Ali, Free Press, New York, NY 10020 page 245)

Thus, the “redlining” was the Muslims choosing on their own to live in their own communities. The schools the Muslims set up themselves were Quranic. Memorizing Suras of the Qur’an and learning Jihad aren’t exactly subjects that lead to gainful employment. Yet they blame the Dutch for no earning power!

The second point in that 2/28 leaflet blames the Dutch for:

o not integrating Muslim youth into their society o For leaving the youth to become gang members o For the their violence o For their unemployment

But what does Ayaan Hersi Ali say about this:

“Children weren’t encouraged to ask questions, and their creativity was not stimulated. They were taught to keep their distance from unbelievers and to obey” (Ibid, page 246).

The leaflet's next point makes the following accusations:

o Mr. Wilders’ translations of the Qur’an are wrong because he doesn’t speak Arabic o That they are “taken out of context”.

Islamic doctrine holds that the Qur’an is Universal. Therefore, are the Muslims for America saying it can only be read in Arabic? Only a small portion of the world’s Muslims read and write Arabic. The Qur’an is translated effectively into many languages.

As for the Quranic quotes in “Fitna” being out of context, Robert Spencer had a Qur’an Commentary at the meeting!. He looked up the passage referring to “strike the unbeliever in the neck”. The context was “usually causing death”.

The Muslims for America went on to assert they were “moderate” and challenged Mr. Wilders to a debate.

But they are saying the same things that CAIR and the rest of the Muslim Brotherhood front organization say: that the Muslims are “victims” and are taking no responsibility for their situation, blaming everyone in sight except themselves.. In my opinion, this sounds like the same deceptive “cultural Jihad” we see everywhere else. Nothing seems“moderate” here!

Debating Muslims is a non-starter. Their concept of “Taqiyya” permits deceit if it furthers the cause of Islam. (Source: Sahih Muslim, Book 032 Number 6303)

The conclusion is stark: it seems we had Dhimmis (defined as a non-Muslim semi-slave that has submitted to Islam: who is ignorant of Islam and afraid of “offending” Muslims) running CPAC 2009. Except for William Bennett noting that the assault of Islam on our Civilization has to be faced and discussed, not a single speaker or panel even mentioned the most serious issue we face in the world today.

My suspicion is that the smiling and hand shaking “Muslims for America” could be infiltrating Jihadists who do not have our long term interest at heart. Are they tied to the Muslim Brotherhood and funded by the Saudis like the rest?

Islam divides the world into two halves: the “Dar Al Islam”, and the “Dar Al Harb”. Pius Muslims would NEVER ally themselves with the “Kaffirs” to strengthen a “Kaffir” government devised by unbelievers. Their sacred obligation is to impose on all humanity The Shari’a, which comes straight from Allah himself.