Tuesday, October 7, 2014

Raymond Ibrahim: How Obama’s Arab Spring Created the Islamic State

/ Jihad Watch [Via FrontPage Magazine

Over a decade ago, the U.S. conquered Iraq; its military and intelligence were on the ground for years with autonomy.   In other words, U.S. influence and authority was more pronounced in Iraq than probably any other Muslim country in the world.

And yet it is in this one Muslim nation, where the U.S. had most authority, where U.S. blood and treasure were spent, that the absolute worst Islamic terrorist group—the Islamic State—was born.


Or is this too related to the great “Arab Spring” failures of the Obama administration?

Consider: Obama was repeatedly warned that withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq would lead to something exactly like the Islamic State—with all the atrocities that have become synonymous with that name.

Indeed, arguing against early troop withdrawal, Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, once made the following now prophetic remarks:
To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States.
It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to Al Qaeda.
It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale.
It would mean we allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan.
It would mean we’d be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.
The point here is not to “side” with Bush—the idea of transporting “democracy” to an Islamic country was ill-conceived from the start—but rather to demonstrate that Obama was thoroughly warned what troop withdrawal would lead to: the Islamic State.   The same U.S. military and intelligence sources that allowed Bush to make that prescient statement also shared their assessments with Obama.

Yet Obama withdrew anyway.  In December 2011, Obama declared the Iraq war a success and pulled out American troops.  And, to the eyes of most Americans, things were relatively quiet—until, of course, the world heard that a head-chopping, infidel-crucifying, mass-murdering “caliphate” had “suddenly” arisen.

Was Iraq also part of the euphoria of the Obama-endorsed “Arab Spring”?

Recall that final troop withdrawal from Iraq occurred at the height of the Arab Spring when the Obama administration was simultaneously betraying key U.S. allies in the Islamic world such as Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak.

If the U.S. was not going to stand by its former “secular strongmen,” but instead was willing to hold hands with their traditional enemies, the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists, why should it have supported Iraq’s Nouri Maliki?… Keep reading 
Netanyahu: Obama Pushing Anti-American Values – There Will Be No Jew-free Zones In Jerusalem

Pamela Geller / Atlas Shrugs

AFDI Jew-free adFinally, someone with testicular fortitude speaking the truth and calling out the emperor and his new clothes.

We have been running ads alerting Americans to this horror for months, years. Finally, a  respected world leader is telling the truth. Finalmente!
“Netanyahu: Obama Pushing Anti-American Values – There Will Be No Jew-free Zones In Jerusalem,” By Joseph Gelman| Israel USA,  October 6, 2014 7:02 PM
“I was baffled by his [Obama's] statement because it doesn’t reflect American values…, I think this is anti-peace… and I’m frankly baffled. It’s not the American way.”
These are truly unprecedented statements by the Prime Minister, representing a new low in Israel’s relationship with President Obama and...

White House tries to back off from Biden comments on militant group

WASHINGTON (MCT) — As Vice President Joe Biden headed to Los Angeles on Monday to meet with the mayor and Democratic donors, the White House was still mopping up the diplomatic mess he caused last week.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest tried Monday to distance President Barack Obama from Biden’s blunt and damning description of the role three U.S. allies played in the rise of Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Turkey, Biden said Thursday, have sent weapons and money to the group and other extremist militias as part of a proxy war against President Bashar Assad of Syria.

Without disputing the statement, Earnest focused on more recent developments. Those nations, Earnest said, have partnered with the U.S. in the fight against Islamic State, also known as ISIL and ISIS.

“There is no doubt that Turkey and other countries in the region understand the threat that ISIL poses to the region and to these individual countries. And that is why the United States, under the president’s leadership, has had success in building broad international support for the actions that we’ve taken against ISIL,” he said.

Biden’s comments, made during a question-and-answer session after a speech at Harvard Business School, caused outrage overseas and posed an ugly diplomatic dilemma for a White House that is trying to hold together a coalition of Arab nations in its campaign against the militant group.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan demanded an apology and told reporters Biden that “will be history for me” if reports of his comments were true. Biden also said Erdogan had privately admitted that he had made a mistake in supporting the group, something Erdogan said “never happened.”

The United Arab Emirates reportedly sought a formal clarification of Biden’s comment.

The vice president tried to tamp down the uproar this weekend with apologetic phone calls. He called Erdogan on Saturday and “apologized for any implication that Turkey or other allies and partners in the region had intentionally supplied or facilitated the growth of ISIL or other violent extremists in Syria,” according to a statement released by Biden’s office.

On Sunday, he called Mohamed bin Zayed al Nahyan, crown prince of Abu Dhabi, also to clarify, the White House said. Biden noted the “UAE’s strong steps in countering extremist messaging and financing and expressed gratitude for their participation in ongoing military operations against ISIL,” the statement said.

The White House did not comment Monday on whether Biden also had called or planned to call Saudi Arabia. Earnest dodged questions about whether Biden’s comments accurately described the affect those nations’ policies had on the rise of extremism in the region, before they joined the U.S.-led coalition.

In recent weeks, Biden has tallied up a long list of verbal stumbles notable even for the famously loose-lipped politician. Despite the recent spate of apologies, the White House defended the vice president.

“The fact of the matter is the vice president is somebody who continues to be a core member of the president’s national security team,” Earnest said.

The Islamic State (ISIS) confirms the case made by Islam for the beheadings (WARNING: Graphic)

Bare Naked Islam

All discussions about whether these beheadings have anything to do with Islam should immediately cease and desist. ‘ISIS lays out five Islamic reasons, based on quranic teachings, to justify the beheadings of American and British captives.’

(Please save this post to distribute among your Muslim-apologist friends and internet acquaintances)

American & British hostages beheaded by ISIS in the past few weeksAmerican & British hostages beheaded by ISIS in the past few weeks

By Johnlee Varghese

International Business Times (via Religion of Peace) In reply to the outburst over the beheading of British aid worker Alan Henning, the Islamic State has released a five point explanation, especially meant for the Muslims to justify the brutal killing.


The five reasons aim to lay down an explanation based on Islamic principles to “guide the permissibility of killing the Prisoners.” Using views and opinions laid down by Islamic scholars, the ISIS statement tries to clarify to its followers that as per the Islamic dictates it has the right to behead or do what it wants with its prisoners.


The Sunni militant group that has taken control of several parts of Syria and Iraq wants to establish an Islamic State governed purely on principles of Sharia law. The ISIS guide tells the “faithful” on how to reply to those who say that prisoners in Islam are not killed but rather shown compassion.

(1) The first argument notes that all Mushrik (anyone who worship any other God other than Allah, which includes the Shias, Yazidis, the Kurds) can neither be granted amnesty nor be ransomed off. Quoting a passage from Surah Al-Anfal (The Spoils of War), it says: “Punish them severely in order to disperse those who are behind them, so that they may learn a lesson.”

JAMES FOLEY(2) The second argument states the reason that a “kufaar” (including Jews and Christians) has to be killed is that if they are not killed, they will later return and pose a threat to Islam.

(3) The third argument is that until and unless a prisoner says subhaanahu wa ta’ala, he can neither be shown generosity and freed without ransom nor be set free after paying a ransom.


(4) The fourth is that amnesty and ransom are possible only after the killing of a large number. So if a captive was imprisoned after that, the Imam has a choice to kill him or (do) otherwise.


(5) The fifth argument is that the Imam or someone acting on his behalf can choose between killing, amnesty, ransom or enslaving the prisoner.

            Hip Surgery

Two patients limp into two different doctors' offices with the same complaint: Both have trouble walking and may require hip surgery.
Patient 1. is examined within the hour, is x-rayed the same day and has a time booked for surgery the following week.
Patient 2. sees his family doctor after waiting 3 weeks for an appointment, then waits 8 weeks to see a specialist, then gets an x-ray, which isn't reviewed for another week and finally has his surgery scheduled for 6 months from then, pending the review boards decision on his age and remaining value to society.
Why the different treatment for the 2 patients?
The FIRST is a Golden Retriever taken to a vet.
The SECOND is a Senior Citizen on Obama care.
In November, if there is no change in government, we'll all have to find a good vet.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery" -Winston Churchill

The Fight Over Obamacare Must Go On 
Editor's note: In the October issue of Townhall Magazine, where this column originally appeared, RedState's Bryan Pruitt explains why losing a few Obamacare battles makes the war even more important to win. 

Conservatives have experienced a fair share of setbacks over the past 12 months in the ongoing battle to roll back the debacle of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, now euphemistically referred to as Obamacare.

Our first setback was acquiescing to the phrase ‘Obamacare’ taking hold in the popular lexicon. Barack Obama is a good and decent man, and a fair number of Americans actually think positively about him. While we vehemently disagree with the president about the size and role of government, opposing a law with his name on it, regardless of how bad the actual legislation is, turned many people away from our arguments. A rebranding is in order.

The courts have provided mixed results, with the Supreme Court finding the law as a whole constitutional, but lower courts invalidating specific federal subsidies. It would take major legal gymnastics to undo those decisions, but stranger things have happened. Where this particular part of the drama ends is difficult to know at this point, so we shouldn’t put all our eggs in the legal basket. As conservatives, we don’t like to rely on courts to solve our political disagreements unless absolutely necessary.

Which brings us to the individual mandate. Liberals are fond of reminding Republicans that the individual mandate was originally an idea from The Heritage Foundation, or individuals associated with Heritage. This is true, but the original idea of requiring a small bit of shared social responsibility is very different than the Obamacare mandate in its current form,which also requires single men to carry plans that include maternity coverage. The examples of other such unnecessary coverage requirements abound.

And then there’s the elephant in the room: the finances. Democrats are fond of rolling out circumspect data pointing to decreases in health care costs for consumers, but there is as much anecdotal evidence that costs actually increased for a large percentage of the population as well. What is rarely discussed is the cost to the taxpayer as Medicaid roles surge and subsidies spread the cost of care across the taxpaying base. Ultimately our children’s children will end up paying for all this spending in the form of higher debt payments than any sane person could have imagined possible only a few short years ago. It would be easy to sit back on our hands and let the financial weight of the law put the country in imminent danger. Our job as conservatives is to avoid this easy path. We must fight to save our country now.

Our job moving forward is patience and the countenance of a happy warrior. The immediate hurdle is to recapture the Senate so Republicans control both chambers of Congress. The obvious follow-up is electing a Senate leadership team that is committed to working hand in hand with congressional Republicans to pass defund and repeal legislation.

Make no mistake, the president will veto these laws. That is fine. We shouldn’t be afraid to shut the government down if need be to get some common sense concessions from the president in his final years in office. Our focus should be on 2016, and demonstrating in no uncertain terms that the Republican Party is the party of health care reform based on free market principles and individual liberty.

Hillary Clinton, or whomever the Democrats nominate, will run from Obamacare. The Democrats will promise reform, attempt to paint our Republican nominee as heartless, and emphasize how popular parts of the law are with the general public. We must make it known far and wide that this is only their first step and that their ultimate goal is the disaster of a single payer system that will ultimately bankrupt the country.

We will remind Americans there is a better choice, a freedom loving choice. This is an uphill battle; winning back the Senate in November and the White House two years from now is a daunting task, and just the first step in really reforming our health care system for the long term health of the nation.
Last week, I discussed how I believe Rush Limbaugh was right in saying that Attorney General Eric Holder's resignation is not in any way a simple bon voyage. Rather, it is a deliberate ploy to maneuver him into an even greater place of influence, possibly even the Supreme Court.
The most obvious replacement on the Supreme Court is liberal-leaning Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1993 by President Bill Clinton with a 96-3 Senate vote, something she admits today would never happen because of her liberal voting record and her connection with the American Civil Liberties Union. Indeed, she is hailed as the Supreme Court's liberal leader, even hugging President Barack Obama before the nation as if he were her own son.

I know that Ginsburg has said repeatedly that she will not retire, but then again, not exactly. She gave a rare interview to Elle magazine right before Holder resigned, in which she stated: "Who do you think President Obama could appoint at this very day, given the boundaries that we have? If I resign any time this year, he could not successfully appoint anyone I would like to see in the court. (The Senate Democrats) took off the filibuster for lower federal court appointments, but it remains for this court. So anybody who thinks that if I step down, Obama could appoint someone like me, they're misguided. As long as I can do the job full steam ... I think I'll recognize when the time comes that I can't any longer. But now I can."

The key phrases in her words are "at this very day" and "any time this year." What about in 2015 or 2016?

Remember, as the Los Angeles Times recently noted, that early in her career, Ginsburg explained that her goal was to match the service of her hero, Justice Louis D. Brandeis, who served for 22 years on the court and retired when he was 82. This fall, she begins her 22nd year on the high court, and she turns 82 in March.

As the Times explained, she "faces a decision that may be the most consequential of her career: Should she retire when the term ends in June so President Obama can name her successor?"