Friday, December 25, 2015

Abbas must be Held Responsible for Current Terror - Shoula Romano Horing

by Shoula Romano Horing

The wave of terror will not stop as long as Abbas and the Palestinian leadership are free to incite, travel and orchestrate terror without personal consequences.

The time arrived for Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, to be held responsible by Israel for his involvement in the Munich Olympic Massacre and his long history of sponsoring and inciting anti-Israel terror, just as the brutal terrorist Samir Kuntar, who was killed in Syria in an Israeli airstrike this week, has been held responsible 36 years after personally smashing a 4-year-old Israeli girl‘s skull with the butt of his rifle.  

In December 2015, for the first time, the public discovered the long-hidden cruel, gruesome details of the 1972 Munich Olympics Massacre. The eight terrorists, representing a branch of the Palestinian Liberation Organization broke in to the apartments at the Olympic Village where 11 Israeli athletes were staying before dawn on Sept. 5, 1972. They were held hostage for 20 hours during which they were beaten and in at least one case, castrated. Mr. Yossef Romano, a champion weight lifter, was shot when he tried to overpower the terrorists early in the attack. He was then left to die and his genitals were cut off through his underwear while the other 10 athletes were sitting around tied up watching. Other athletes were beaten and sustained serious injuries, including broken bones. Mr. Romano and another athlete were killed in the Olympics Village by the Palestinian terrorists while the other nine were killed during a failed rescue attempt after they were moved with their PLO captors to a nearby airport. 

Since then, most of the PLO terrorists who were involved in the Munich attack have been assassinated by Israeli Mossad agents. But Mahmoud Abbas was not held accountable. 

For those with short memories, Abbas, like Arafat, was a founding member of Fatah, the PLO's main faction since 1969. While Arafat was the face of the PLO, Abbas was always number two to Arafat and the main financier of numerous terrorist attacks. In the autobiography of former PLO official Muhammad Daoud Oddeh, published in France in 1999, it was reported that Mahmoud Abbas, also called by his guerrilla name, Abu Mazen, was involved in the 1972 Munich Olympic massacre. Oddeh, known as Abu Daoud, wrote that he recalled that the plan was concocted in Rome at a meeting he held with senior PLO official Salah Khalaf, better known as Abu Iyad, and Abu Mazen, who, Abu Iyad said, was to secure the funding.  

For many years the West and leftist Israeli governments and the media chose to play a preposterous game of presenting Abbas as the new, credible, and moderate Palestinian leader whom Israel and the West could trust to bring peace at last through negotiations. In order to achieve this delusional possibility, they chose to ignore, deny, or simply forget the true past of Abbas and give him a different, more wholesome past. They chose to advance the myth that Abbas was a partner for peace who was willing to coexist with the Jews despite the fact that he was second to Arafat when the Palestinian Authority (PA) rejected Israeli Prime Minister Barak’s offer of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as a capital in the year 2000 and through the subsequent 5 years of Arafat’s war of terror through suicide bombings against Israel which killed over 1000 Israelis from 2000 to 2005. After the death of Arafat in 2004, Abbas became the chairman of the Fatah branch and the PLO, and as a president of the PA he again rejected another offer of peace made this time by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2008, which would have allowed the Palestinians to coexist with Israel as an independent state. 

For years as president he has continued the legacy of Arafat by inciting and indoctrinating to violence and hatred new generations of young Palestinians through the PA-controlled media outlets and schools, but he did depart from Arafat when he called for an end to anti-Israel violence and a return to peaceful resistance. While never the peace partner that the West or Israel yearned for, he was considered by Israeli officials as useful, nonthreatening, and a violence-abhorring strategic asset.  

But now his usefulness has expired. He has become more a part of the problem than the solution. While Abbas has been repeatedly portraying the current terror campaign as a kind of popular, spontaneous struggle led by Palestinian youth, frustrated by lack of hope, in reality for the last three months Abbas, in coordination with Hamas, chose to copy his former boss Arafat by orchestrating, sponsoring, directing, and inciting the recent wave of stabbings. The Palestinian Authority, led by Abbas, is using terror as a tool to achieve its political objective to compel Israel to unilaterally withdraw from the West Bank and East Jerusalem under international pressure without any negotiations or any agreement to end the conflict with the Jewish State. Throughout the past year, Abbas has instigated the violence by telling his people lies that Israel was planning to defile and destroy the Al Aqsa Mosque and inflamed them further through social media and mosques preachers by telling them that Israel is committing “war crimes” and “summary executions” of innocent young Palestinians. During the last month the Abbas’ led PA and Hamas officials have been meeting in total and united support to spread the knives terror campaign and the warfare against Israel in the international arena.    

On November 20, 2015, the Fatah Central Committee and Hamas Political Bureau took part in the General Arab Conference to Support the Intifada in Beirut. In the closing declaration of the Conference the participants stated that the Intifada seeks to make it less costly for the IDF to withdraw than to keep fighting both the Intifada itself and international opinion. The committee’s resolutions described Israel as an enemy against which all-out war must be waged until its complete destruction.

On December 6, the Fatah Central Committee headed by Mahmoud Abbas convened in the presidential headquarter in Ramallah and approved a confrontation strategy towards Israel. Based on Palestinian media reports, it seems that the Committee gave its backing to a strategy that combines the terror knives intifada, with diplomatic and legal warfare in the international arena and ending the security cooperation with Israel.

The wave of terror will not stop as long as Abbas and the Palestinian leadership are free to incite, travel and orchestrate terror without personal consequences. Abbas must know that if he continues his instigation, he will be held inside the Mukatta just as his predecessor was, and the sources of income to Abbas, his armies, and the Palestinian people will dry up completely by Israel’s withholding of taxes and aid, preventing Palestinians from working inside or visiting Israel, and preventing nonresidents from entering Palestinian-controlled areas.  

Finally, the Palestinians should know that Intifada I and II did not occur under a Likud government. If they continue, they will see the IDF up close, inside all their cities and homes in Judea and Samaria. Israel is here to stay until a new Palestinian leadership arises that truly wants peace with the Jewish state.

Shoula Romano Horing is an Israeli born and raised. Her blog is


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

FrontPage Magazine’s Man of the Year: America’s Sheriff - Daniel Greenfield

by Daniel Greenfield

One man stands tall against Obama and the Left.


There is a war on police.

It’s the post-Ferguson truth that every cop knows, but there is one man who has emerged as a passionate and articulate spokesman for law enforcement and is willing to call it a “war on police.”

“War had been declared on the American police officer led by some high profile people, one of them coming out of the White House, and one coming out of the United States Department of Justice,” he said. “And it’s open season right now.”

For decades, Sheriff David A. Clarke, Jr. put his life and his energies into protecting and serving the people of Milwaukee County. Though always a man of strong opinions, it was when the White House cheered a war on police and pushed through pro-crime policies, freeing drug dealers while locking up police officers that he emerged as a national figure of unquestionable moral authority.

When Attorney General Eric Holder met Sheriff Clarke he sneered, “What's up with the hat?” Political opponents have mocked Sheriff Clarke as a “big cowboy.” And indeed, the Sheriff of Milwaukee County wears a cowboy hat and he can be seen riding a horse. He also preaches “cowboy values” like speaking frankly and telling people that they have to be ready to stand up to criminals.

“You can beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed or you can fight back,” he told his constituents. “You have a duty to protect yourself and your family.”

The meeting between Holder and Clarke was a clash of worldviews. In Holder’s social justice worldview, fighting crime only feeds the root causes of crime. The criminal is the victim. The crime victim is the perpetrator. Every arrest, whether of a drug dealer or a terrorist, only causes more crime.

Under Holder and Lynch’s social justice policing, the Ferguson Effect has crippled cops and juiced up crime. Cities are returning back to the bad old days when social justice reformers passed their pro-crime policies and some neighborhoods became nightmarish territories where the violence never stopped.

Sheriff Clarke started his career as a patrol officer. He was a Homicide Detective. Crime isn’t a theory for him. It’s a fact. Its victims aren’t faceless statistics. They’re mothers and daughters, fathers and sons.

Underneath that cowboy hat is a law enforcement professional with a degree in Criminal Justice Management¸ who has passed through training and leadership programs at Harvard and Quantico, the former Commanding Officer of the Intelligence Division of the Milwaukee Police Department, who knows both the theory of law enforcement and its grim reality at every level. Along the way, Clarke had earned a reputation for standing up for the men and women in law enforcement under his leadership.

When he fought back against the White House’s war on police, he was doing what he had always done.

“In the early days of this cop hating we didn’t have a voice to counter that message: we are racist, blood-thirsty. We didn’t have a counter narrative which is why I stepped up and tried to be that counter narrative,” Clarke explained. “I realized once I started taking on the attorney general and the president of the United States I was in the deep end of the pool. It is dangerous in the deep end of the pool.”

And Sheriff Clarke has stood up to smears of the White House and its billionaire allies and survived.

Michael Bloomberg threw six figures worth of ads at him and lost every dime of that money.  “I trust the voters. The voters can’t be bought,” Clarke said. The voters of Milwaukee County picked the big cowboy over the big city billionaire. They chose a man who would stand up for them over the powerful progressives who are determined to walk all over them and tell them that it’s for their own good.

 Many police officers fear for their jobs and their lives while appointed urban police brass pander to radical leftists in public office. Police officers are being wrongly arrested to appease mobs while violent drug dealers and gang members are freed by the order of the White House. Meanwhile children are shot by gang members and ordinary people are beaten, raped and robbed on formerly safe streets.

Just as in his days as a patrol officer, Sheriff Clarke came running to the rescue as the courageous face of a beleaguered law enforcement community. In interviews and speeches, he spoke the hard truth without a hint of political correctness, fighting to keep Americans safe well beyond his own jurisdiction.

As he had always done.

Sheriff Clarke’s conservative worldview was formed by the influence of his father who was an African-American Airborne Ranger in Korea and guided him to law enforcement. As a boy, he lived in a housing project. He worked his way up through perseverance. He has seen a city where crime was a rarity take a turn toward the terrifying statistics of Detroit. And he is equally blunt about the causes.

“Parents have turned over their duty to raise their kids to federal and state government programs,” Clarke says. “These kids suffer from a lot of emotional baggage spawned by ineffective parenting, which is worsened by white bleeding-heart liberals who use these troubled kids for their liberal agenda. Social liberalism is a sadistic ideology.”

“White liberal social policies have become the new racism in America.”

Sheriff Clarke has been speaking out against the disease of government dependency for a long time. Ten years ago, he wrote, “Liberal elites and their interest groups have continued to deal with their own guilt of the legacy of slavery by pursuing the flawed strategy of creating more social service programs with little or no accountability and nothing other than anecdotal evidence of results.”

“Keeping alive programs that do nothing more than keep minorities mired in a culture of dependency is self-defeating and hurts the very people that liberals profess to want to help,” he had warned.

The pro-crime theorists of the left prefer to think of men like Sheriff Clarke as thoughtless proponents of brute force who are unwilling to consider root causes, but Clarke understands root causes far better than they do. When he warns that it’s the ghetto rather than the police that needs fixing, he can back the argument up with a wealth of statistics. When he shoots down the lies of #BlackLivesMatter about “genocide” or the ACLU’s false claims about “racial profiling,” he does it with hard numbers.

Sheriff Clarke is the left’s worst nightmare, a dedicated cop and a relentless thinker who can take apart their political and social failures with the same methodology that he used at crime scenes. 

The left likes to castigate black conservatives as alien to the community, but Sheriff Clarke has proven them wrong by winning election after election. When he asks, “How do we go from Rosa Parks to Mike Brown as symbols of the Civil Rights Movement,“ he is speaking as the voice of a true civil rights movement which meets dependency with responsibility and victimhood with courage.

The war on police is really a debate about personal responsibility. And personal responsibility is the new and final civil rights movement. As weeping community organizers sell t-shirts decorated with photos of criminals, Sheriff Clarke rides tall with a call for personal responsibility and individual freedom.

 That is why Sheriff Clarke is FrontPage Magazine’s Man of the Year.  

While the media celebrates whining crybullies, we stand with the courage and commitment shown by one man. By taking a stand, Sheriff Clarke has become more than the Sheriff of Milwaukee County.

He has become America’s Sheriff.

His leadership is an inspiration to all of us to take a stand in our profession and in our community for our values, our freedom and our country.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Jews Denied Security Clearance While Huma Infiltrates the Government - Joseph Klein

by Joseph Klein

How the administration treats a Jewish dentist with family in Israel compared to an Islamist ally.

The Obama administration’s anti-Israel sentiment knows no bounds. The latest example involves the denial of a security clearance to a Jewish-American dentist, Dr. Gershon Pincus, on the grounds that he has “divided loyalties.” All that Dr. Pincus wanted to do was to use the experience and skills he had gained over a lifetime of private practice to give back to his country – the United States of America. He wanted to serve American troops as a dentist at an off-base U.S. Navy clinic. Nothing doing, decided the Obama administration after a second security investigation of the dentist. Using a McCarthyite guilt by association rationale, the dentist was disqualified because of his close family ties in Israel and the possible contact of his family members with their Israeli neighbors. 

Dr. Pincus’s original security investigation had reached a positive conclusion: “There is nothing in subject’s background or character that would make him vulnerable to blackmail, extortion, coercion or duress.” That should have ended the matter. After all, Dr. Pincus was not applying for a sensitive job in the Department of Defense or the CIA. He was simply seeking to provide dental services at an off-base U.S. Naval clinic.

However, the Obama administration was not through investigating Dr. Pincus. It ordered a second investigation, conducted this time by a contract investigator sent by the Office of Personnel Management. The bill of particulars resulting from this second investigation are set out in the “Statement of Reasons” for denying Dr. Pincus’s request for security clearance. They included such shocking details as the fact that the dentist’s ailing mother now lives in Israel along with his brother and sister. He sends money to his mother to help her pay her rent. He calls his family members and has even visited Israel three times in the last eight years for his father’s funeral, his niece’s wedding and to see his mother. Dr. Pincus’s deceased son was a dual citizen of the U.S. and Israel and also served for six months in the Israeli Army.  

“Foreign contacts and interests may be a security concern due to divided loyalties or financial foreign interests,” quoted the Statement of Reasons from the federal government’s Adjudicative Guideline B – Foreign Influence. They “may be manipulated or induced to help a foreign person, group, organization, or government in a way that is not in U.S. interests, or is vulnerable to pressure or coercion by any foreign interests.”

Just regurgitating this expression of security concerns from the Guideline is meaningless without considering the context in which it is supposed to be applied. Guideline B lists a number of mitigating circumstances that investigators are expected to take into account, among which are whether “the nature of the relationships with foreign persons, the country in which these persons are located, or the positions or activities of those persons in that country are such that it is unlikely the individual will be placed in a position of having to choose between the interests of a foreign individual, group, organization, or government and the interests of the U.S.”

In Dr. Pincus’s case, the Statement of Reasons explaining the decision to deny his security clearance does not point to any security risk posed by the dentist himself or his relatives living in Israel. There is not a single shred of evidence cited, including any questionable statements or associations, which calls into question the loyalty of Dr. Pincus’s family members to the United States.  Nor are any activities referenced that could pose a conflict of interest for Dr. Pincus in serving as a dentist at the Navy clinic. The dentist’s son who had served in the Israeli army is no longer alive. His mother is ailing. His brother does not want to become an Israeli citizen. His sister does hold dual citizenship, but there is nothing to indicate that she is in a position of influence in Israel that would force Dr. Pincus to have to choose between Israel’s interests and the interests of the United States, assuming there were even a circumstance in which his dental activities and access to the Navy clinic could cause a problem.

Moreover, the Statement of Reasons admits that Dr. Pincus himself has “no intentions of moving to Israel, or obtaining Israeli citizenship.” Nevertheless, the second investigation led to his disqualification.

This disgraceful decision was not an isolated occurrence. Although subject to an appeal, there is not much cause for optimism that it will be reversed. A Wall Street Journal Op Ed by Bret Stephens reported that “there have been a total of 58 cases in which Israeli ties were a significant factor in the decision. Of these, 36 applicants—an astonishing 62% of the total—lost their appeals and had their clearance applications denied.”

Contrast the arbitrary, discriminatory treatment of a Jewish American dentist who has family ties to Israel with a Muslim American who has family ties to Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood.  The latter, Huma Abedin, was allowed to serve in the Obama State Department and remains a close confidante of Hillary Clinton.

Obama’s Office of Personnel Management and State Department evidently did not consider Ms. Abedin a security risk for a much more sensitive job than serving as a dentist at an off-base Navy clinic, despite the following undisputed facts:

1. Although born in the United States, Huma Abedin grew up in Saudi Arabia, where her parents were recruited by Abdullah Omar Naseef (a jihadist affiliated with al-Qaeda and the Muslim World League) to establish an organization known as the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA). The principle underlying the notion of Muslim Minority Affairs is to discourage assimilation of Muslim minority populations into the culture and society of their host non-Muslim majority countries. Such separatism would enable the Muslim minority population to grow over time and expand the influence of sharia law in their host countries. 
2. Huma Abedin returned to the United States from Saudi Arabia to attend George Washington University, where she was an executive board member of George Washington University's Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Muslim Students Association.
3. Huma's late father founded IMMA's Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, now run by Abedin's mother, Saleha Mahmood Abedin.  Saleha Abedin is a sociologist with ties to numerous jihadist organizations, including the Muslim Brotherhood. She has directed the Jordan-based International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child (IICWC), which supports the implementation of strict sharia law. Saleha Abedin still lives in Saudi Arabia.
4. Huma Abedin served as an assistant editor for the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs for twelve years, leaving shortly before she joined the State Department in 2009. The first seven of the years in which Huma was an assistant editor overlapped with the al-Qaeda-affiliated Naseef's active presence at IMMA, including one year in which Huma and Naseef served together on the editorial board of the journal. 
5. Huma Abedin did not distance herself from her mother, despite her mother’s jihadist views that place sharia law over man-made law and self-governance. In fact, Huma Abedin introduced Hillary Clinton to her mother during a visit to Saudi Arabia, while Hillary was serving as Secretary of State.

In short, Huma Abedin has a family connection to Saudi Arabia, the source of the Wahhabi jihadist ideology and the country where fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers came from. She grew up there. Huma’s mother is a well-known jihadist in Saudi Arabia still active in pushing a sharia law agenda that is antithetical in material respects to the Constitution of the United States and American values. Dr. Gershon Pincus has a mother, brother and sister living in Israel, which, at least prior to the Obama administration, has been our closest ally in the Middle East. His mother has dementia and neither she, nor Dr. Pincus’s siblings, have expressed any ideology incompatible with the U.S. Constitution or American values. 

Yet Huma Abedin, a self-proclaimed “proud Muslim,” slid through her security screening to a highly sensitive job at the State Department and is now a key adviser to the leading Democratic candidate for president. No such luck for Dr. Pincus, who just wanted to take care of the dental needs of some Navy personnel. If this isn’t an example of blatant discrimination against American Jews with family members living in Israel, then pray tell what is?    

Joseph Klein is a Harvard-trained lawyer and the author of Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom and Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations & Radical Islam.


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Will Donald Trump End the GOP’s Role as America’s Conservative Party? - George Will

by George Will

Hat tip: Dr. Carolyn Tal

Conservatives’ highest priority now must be to prevent Trump from winning the Republican nomination in this the GOP’s third epochal intra-party struggle in 104 years.

If you look beyond Donald Trump’s comprehensive unpleasantness — is there a disagreeable human trait he does not have? — you might see this: He is a fundamentally sad figure. His compulsive boasting is evidence of insecurity. His unassuageable neediness suggests an aching hunger for others’ approval to ratify his self-admiration. His incessant announcements of his self-esteem indicate that he is not self-persuaded. Now, panting with a puppy’s insatiable eagerness to be petted, Trump has reveled in the approval of Vladimir Putin, murderer and war criminal.
Putin slyly stirred America’s politics by saying Trump is “very talented,” adding that he welcomed Trump’s promise of “closer, deeper relations,” whatever that might mean, with Russia. Trump announced himself flattered to be “so nicely complimented” by a “highly respected” man: “When people call you brilliant, it’s always good.” When MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough said Putin “kills journalists and political opponents and invades countries,” Trump replied that “at least he’s a leader.” Besides, Trump breezily asserted, “I think our country does plenty of killing also.” Two days later, Trump, who rarely feigns judiciousness, said: “It has not been proven that he’s killed reporters.”
Well. Perhaps the 56 journalists murdered were coincidental victims of amazingly random violence that the former KGB operative’s police state is powerless to stop. It has, however, been “proven,” perhaps even to Trump’s exacting standards, that Putin has dismembered Ukraine. (Counts one and two at the 1946 Nuremberg trials concerned conspiracy to wage, and waging, aggressive war.)

Until now, Trump’s ever-more-exotic effusions have had an almost numbing effect. Almost. But by his embrace of Putin, and by postulating a slanderous moral equivalence — Putin kills journalists, the United States kills terrorists, what’s the big deal, or the difference? — Trump has forced conservatives to recognize their immediate priority.
Certainly conservatives consider it crucial to deny the Democratic party a third consecutive term controlling the executive branch. Extending from eight to twelve years its use of unbridled executive power would further emancipate the administrative state from control by either a withering legislative branch or a supine judiciary. But first things first. Conservatives’ highest priority now must be to prevent Trump from winning the Republican nomination in this the GOP’s third epochal intra-party struggle in 104 years.

In 1912, former-president Theodore Roosevelt campaigned for the Republican nomination on an explicitly progressive platform. Having failed to win the nomination, he ran a third-party campaign against the Republican nominee, President William Howard Taft, and the Democratic nominee, New Jersey governor Woodrow Wilson, who that November would become the first person elected president who was deeply critical of the American founding.

TR shared Wilson’s impatience with the separation of powers, which both men considered an 18th-century relic incompatible with a properly energetic executive. Espousing unconstrained majoritarianism, TR favored a passive judiciary deferential to elected legislatures and executives; he also endorsed the powers of popular majorities to overturn judicial decisions and recall all public officials.

Taft finished third, carrying only Utah and Vermont. But because Taft hewed to conservatism, and was supported by some other leading Republicans (e.g., Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, one of TR’s closest friends, and Elihu Root, TR’s secretary of war and then secretary of state), the Republican Party survived as a counterbalance to a progressive Democratic Party.

In 1964, Barry Goldwater mounted a successful conservative insurgency against a Republican establishment that was content to blur and dilute the Republican distinctiveness that had been preserved 52 years earlier. Goldwater defeated New York’s Governor Nelson Rockefeller for the nomination, just as Taft had defeated TR, a former New York governor. Like Taft, Goldwater was trounced (he carried six states). But the Republican party won five of the next seven presidential elections. In two of them, Ronald Reagan secured the party’s continuity as the custodian of conservatism.

In 2016, a Trump nomination would not just mean another Democratic presidency. It would mean the loss of what Taft and then Goldwater made possible — a conservative party as a constant presence in American politics.

It is possible Trump will not win any primary, and that by the middle of March our long national embarrassment will be over. But this avatar of unfettered government and executive authoritarianism has mesmerized a large portion of Republicans for six months. The larger portion should understand this:

One hundred and four years of history is in the balance. If Trump is the Republican nominee in 2016, there might not be a conservative party in 2020 either.

George Will is a Pulitzer Prize–winning syndicated columnist. © 2015 The Washington Post


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Obama's denial of theological roots of Islamic terror endangers the nation - Thomas Lifson

by Thomas Lifson

--the American political, media, academic, and ruling classes have been in denial about the nature of scriptural Islam.

Andrew McCarthy has published the read of the day. For those few who do not know his background, McCarthy prosecuted the Blind Sheik for the first World Trade Center bombing as an assistant US Attorney. In the course of this prosecution ansd since, he has become a genuine expert of Islamic theology and its relationship to Islamic terror.

For a mixture of reasons ranging from political correctness to naiveté (how can one of the world’s “great religions” be so flawed?) to lusting after oil money (how many universities have received how many millions of dollars from oil producing countries?) to vote pandering, the American political, media, academic, and ruling classes have been in denial about the nature of scriptural Islam.  The cold, hard truth about Islam is daunting.  Its scriptures demand a cruel and ruthless approach to establishing world dominance, and terrorists who are trying to kill us have sound scriptural reasons for believing they will achieve blessings in the afterlife.

I really wish this weren’t so. But it is, and we only harm ourselves by pretending otherwise. And for those Muslims who don’t follow this interpretation of their religion, I say thanks. And keep it up. For those brave few Mulsim like Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, who energetically point out the need to reform Islam, I say blessings upon you. And watch your back!  And for courageous former Muslims like Ayaan Hirsi Ali,  who revolt against the oppression and cruelty, I hail their bravery, for other Muslims are commanded to enforce the death penalty for apostasy upon them.

McCarthy lays out in compelling and readable form why President Obama’s obstinate refusal to acknowledge the facts is so dangerous. Read the whole thing. But here are two excerpts:
 It is not just that the word terror appears several times in the Koran; it is that the word appears in a particular context: The duty of Muslims to act as Allah’s instrument to terrorize non-Muslims is a recurring scriptural theme. In Sura 3:151, to take one of several examples, Muslims are admonished:
Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers.
Omar Abdel Rahman, the “Blind Sheikh” I prosecuted in the mid-'90s after his cell bombed the World Trade Center and planned similar strikes against other New York City landmarks, was a renowned scholar of Islamic jurisprudence. Indeed -- and this is worth pausing over -- his mastery of our enemy’s ideology was the sole source of his authority to approve jihadist attacks.
Understand: the president is not refusing to associate terror with Islam out of political correctness. His delusion is ideological. It informs his every decision. It is why the terrorist threat has so intensified, and why we are in more peril today than at any time since before the 9/11 attacks.
The Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) strategy has gotten some way overdue attention in the two weeks since 14 Americans were killed by the San Bernardino jihadists. As I’ve recently recounted, Obama’s Department of Homeland Security published CVE training instructions for federal agencies involved in national security. All of the two-page “Do’s and Don’ts” [sic] document is breathtakingly detached from life here on earth, but buried in the middle is a specific directive that speaks volumes:
Don’t use training that is all “war stories,” which may rely too much on outdated information and overgeneralizations. Regaling an audience with a blow-by-blow account of a 2003 terrorism investigation does not address the changing nature of violent extremism we face today.
Obama believes the nature of terrorism is changing. This is absurd. The violence today is executed by jihadists. They are motivated by a scripture-based doctrinal command to impose sharia -- Islam’s societal framework and legal code, which is the necessary precondition to Islamicizing a society and, ultimately, establishing a caliphate. That is why they kill today, it is why they killed in 2003, in 1993, in 1800, in 1565, in 1064, in 732, and so on all the way back to the raids Muhammad himself led in the seventh century. The technology and tactics of violent jihadism have changed over time; the nature of it has been the same for nearly a millennium-and-a-half.
We may or may not be at war with Islam. But Islam is most definitely at war with us, and we live in what it calls “The House of War” (Dar al harb)

Thomas Lifson


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Turkey's Dangerous Ambitions - Burak Bekdil

by Burak Bekdil

  • Erdogan repeated on Dec. 11 that Turkey would not pull out its troops out of Iraq. In response, Iraq appealed to the UN Security Council to demand an immediate withdrawal of all Turkish troops from Iraq, calling Turkey's incursion a "flagrant violation" of international law.
  • "For centuries, and even since the Mongols, sensible Islam has asked: 'What went wrong? Why has God forsaken us, and allowed others to reach the moon?'" — Professor Norman Stone, prominent expert on Turkish politics.
  • With the inferiority complex and megalomania still gripping the country's Islamist polity, Erdogan's Islam is not sensible; it is perilous.
It is the same old Middle East story: The Shiite accuse Sunnis of passionately following sectarian policies; Sunnis accuse the Shiite of passionately following sectarian polices; and they are both right. Except that Turkey's pro-Sunni sectarian policies are taking an increasingly perilous turn as they push Turkey into new confrontations, adding newcomers to an already big list of hostile countries.

Take President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's recent remarks on the centuries-old Shiite-Sunni conflict: they amusingly looked more like a confession than an accusation: "Today we are faced with an absolute sectarianism. Who is doing it? Who are they? Iran and Iraq," Erdogan said.

This is the same Erdogan who once said, "The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers...." Is that not sectarian?

So, with a straight face, the President of one sectarian country (Sunni Turkey) is accusing another country (Shiite Iran and Shiite-dominated Iraq) of being sectarian.

Erdogan went on: "What about the Sunnis? There are Sunni Arabs, Sunni Turkmen and Sunni Kurds [in Iraq and Syria]. What will happen to their security? They want to feel safe."

Never realizing that its ambitions to spread Sunni Islam over large swaths of the Middle East, especially Syria and Iraq, were bigger than its ability to do so, Turkey now finds itself confronting a formidable bloc of pro-Shiite countries: Russia, Iran, Syria, Iraq, and (not to mention the much smaller Lebanon).

Even before the crisis with Russia that began on November 24 -- over Turkey's shooting down a Russian SU-24 along the Turkish-Syrian border -- has shown any sign of de-escalation, another Turkish move had sparked a major dispute with neighboring Iraq.

Just when Turkey moved to reinforce its hundreds of troops at a military camp in Iraq, the Baghdad government gave an ultimatum to Ankara for the removal of all Turkish soldiers stationed in Iraq since last year. Turkey responded by halting its reinforcements. Not enough, the Iraqis apparently think. Iraq's prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, said on December 7 that his country might turn to the UN security council if Turkish troops in northern Iraq were not withdrawn within 48 hours. Hadi al-Ameri, the head of the militant Shiite Badr Organization, threatened that his group would fight Turkish forces if Ankara continued its troop deployment.

Badr Brigade spokesman Karim al-Nuri put the Turkish ambitions in quite a realistic way: "We have the right to respond and we do not exclude any type of response until the Turks have learned their lesson ... Do they have a dream of restoring Ottoman greatness? This is a great delusion and they will pay dearly for Turkish arrogance."

Inevitably, Russia came into the picture. Russia's UN ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, said he told the Security Council that Turkey was acting "recklessly and inexplicably" by sending troops across the border into Iraq without the consent of the Iraqi government. According to Russia, the Turkish move "lacks legality."

All that fell on deaf ears in Ankara, as Erdogan repeated on Dec. 11 that Turkey would not pull out its troops from Iraq. In response, Iraq appealed to the UN Security Council to demand an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all Turkish troops from northern Iraq, calling Turkey's military incursion a "flagrant violation" of international law.

The next day, Shiite militia members gathered in Baghdad's Tahrir Square to protest against Turkey. Crowds of young men in military fatigues, as well as some Shiite politicians, chanted against Turkish "occupation," vowing they would fight the Turkish troops themselves if they do not withdraw. Angry protesters also burned Turkish flags.

Supporters of Iraqi Shiite militias burned Turkish flags in Baghdad this month, after Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan refused to withdraw Turkey's troops from northern Iraq.

Through its efforts to oust Syria's non-Sunni president, Bashar al-Assad, and build a Muslim Brotherhood-type of Sunni Islamist regime in Damascus, Turkey has become everyone's foe over its eastern and southern borders -- in addition to having to wait anxiously for the next Russian move to hit it -- not knowing where the blow will come from.

The confrontation with Russia has given Moscow an excuse to augment its military deployment in Syria and the eastern Mediterranean, and weaken allied air strikes against Islamic State (IS).

Russia has increased its military assets in the region, including deploying S-400 air and anti-missile defense systems, probably ready to shoot down the first Turkish fighter jet flying over Syrian skies.

Waiting for Turkish-Russian tensions to ease, and trying to avoid a clash between NATO member Turkey and Russia, U.S. officials have quietly put on hold a request for Turkey to more actively to join the allied air missions in Syria against IS. After having lost its access to Syrian soil, Turkey also has been declared militarily non grata in Iraq.

As Professor Norman Stone, a prominent expert on Turkish politics, explained in a recent article: "Erdogan's adventurism has been quite successful so far, but it amounts to an extraordinary departure for Turkish foreign policy, and maybe even risks the destruction of the country. How on earth could this happen? The background is an inferiority complex, and megalomania. For centuries, and even since the Mongols, sensible Islam has asked: 'What went wrong? Why has God forsaken us, and allowed others to reach the moon?'"

With the inferiority complex and megalomania still gripping the country's Islamist polity, Erdogan's Islam is not sensible; it is perilous.

Burak Bekdil, based in Ankara, is a Turkish columnist for the Hürriyet Daily and a Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Jews and the rise of populist conservatism - Isi Leibler

by Isi Leibler

How should Jews around the world respond to the rise of traditionally anti-Semitic right-wing parties that now support Israel?

Since the emancipation of the 18th century, Jews engaged in public life traditionally supported ‎liberal, reform and even revolutionary movements which in most cases paved the way for ‎them to achieve equality. This was not surprising as, by and large, the conservatives and ‎especially the nationalist and radical right embraced anti-Semitism as a central platform issue. That was not deflected by the fact that many of the early socialists, ‎even those of Jewish origin like Karl Marx, frequently also promoted anti-Semitism. ‎

This trend accelerated in the 1930s when many conservatives tolerated Nazism as a bulwark ‎against bolshevism. As the global Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda onslaught mushroomed, it was ‎primarily (but not exclusively) the socialists and liberals who spoke out.‎

In countries where Jews found haven from the Nazis, the liberals and socialists tended to be ‎more accommodating to the refugees than the frequently hostile conservatives.‎

In occupied Western Europe, it was parties on the right, such as the French Vichy government, ‎that collaborated with the Nazis. In Eastern Europe it was the traditional radical right-wing ‎nationalists with a long tradition of instigating pogroms against Jews who often directly aided ‎and abetted the Nazis in carrying out their Final Solution.‎

It is thus hardly surprising that in the postwar era, the Jews in the West largely supported, ‎contributed to and were overwhelmingly represented in liberal and labor parties, even when ‎their own economic status would have inclined them toward the more conservative parties.‎

Even at the turn of the century this applied, especially in the United States, which absorbed ‎large numbers of East European bundist democratic socialists. Jews' involvement in and ‎support of the Democratic Party became part of their uniquely American DNA, at times ‎superseding their Jewish cultural and religious backgrounds.‎

However, the past three decades have witnessed dramatic changes. Together with ‎organizations purporting to promote human rights, the liberals and the left-wing political ‎parties have distanced themselves from Israel amid its conflict with the Palestinians, and at best employed moral equivalence ‎toward the Palestinian perpetrators of terror and the Israelis defending themselves. ‎Throughout Western Europe they have become outrightly hostile to Israel. The newly elected ‎U.K. Labour party leader is even on record praising Hamas.‎

This has led increasingly to many committed Jews who had traditionally voted for parties on ‎the left to tilt toward more conservative parties. This applies to Europe, Canada and Australia.‎

The United States is an exception. Even following U.S. President Barack Obama's vicious diplomatic ‎onslaughts against Israel and the Republican Party's committed support for Israel, the majority ‎of American Jews remain Democratic Party supporters.‎

Over the last two or three years, the emergence of populist parties on the far right of the ‎political scene has further complicated the political situation for Diaspora Jews.‎

Of course, the Hungarian Jobbik and Greek Golden Dawn are disgusting outright anti-Semitic ‎Nazi parties that Jews abhor.‎

But there are other populist parties that have grown dramatically in response to Arab ‎terrorism and more recently in protest to the massive influx of Syrian and other Muslim refugees.‎

A decade ago, the French National Front party headed by the anti-Semitic Holocaust denier ‎Jean Marie Le Pen was considered a fringe fascist group with marginal appeal. These days, under ‎the leadership of his daughter Marine, the party obtained 28% of the first round vote in the ‎recent local elections, making it the largest party in the French political arena. Were it not for a ‎union of the socialists and Nicolas Sarkozy's right-wing Republicans, the National Front may ‎have triumphed in the second round.‎

Le Pen sought to cleanse her party of fascist and anti-Semitic elements and even expelled the ‎party's founder, her father. She has waged a relentless campaign to limit immigration and ‎prevent Islamic elements from influencing the country. She defeated a ‎government effort to charge her for inciting against Muslims after she claimed that the closure of ‎central Paris streets for Muslim prayer reminded her of restrictions imposed on the nation ‎during the Nazi occupation. She also publicly supported Israel. ‎

Yet the representative body of the French Jewish community, CRIF, in a major statement ‎issued by its president, veteran Jewish communal leader Roger Cukierman called on all ‎French Jews to rally and campaign against the National Front to deny the "populist and ‎xenophobic party" an electoral victory. He was supported by French Chief Rabbi Haim Korsia. ‎Yet despite this, it is estimated that about 18% of Jews who felt threatened by recent events ‎still voted for the National Front.‎

Similar situations prevail with other populist parties that have eschewed anti-Semitism and ‎support Israel but remain shunned by most Jews who still associate them with the former anti-‎Semitic populist movements. None stands out more than Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, ‎whose passionate support for Israel is remarkable. Yet many Jews would find it difficult to ‎endorse his extreme call to outlaw the Quran and are offended by his party's commitment to ‎ban Jewish as well as Muslim methods of slaughter.‎

There are even more complex situations in Eastern Europe. Russian President Vladimir Putin, a former KGB agent, ‎may be an authoritarian nationalist leader but is nevertheless -- for the time being -- a friend of ‎Israel and the Jewish people.‎

The Hungarian government, despite being extremely right wing and having a sizeable neo-Nazi ‎party in parliament, rejected a memorial for the anti-Semitic Hungarian nationalists (albeit ‎under pressure) and is very supportive of Israel. The new Polish government includes a ‎number of people with unsavory records but is displaying positive attitudes to Israel and Jews. ‎The Baltic governments promote as heroes, nationalists who collaborated in the extermination ‎of their Jewish population, and seek to cover up a torrid past. But these governments also try ‎to present themselves as friends of the Jewish people and supporters of Israel. ‎

How should Israel and Diaspora Jews respond to these situations?‎

If we respond exclusively in moral or judgmental historical terms, we isolate ourselves and lose ‎whatever influence we might have. ‎

It is time for us to start thinking in pragmatic terms. Let us set aside noble concepts of limiting ‎ourselves to associating exclusively with the "good" people (if they exist beyond our illusions) ‎and doing what all other nations and people do. Dismiss political and moral correctness and ‎act to promote our interests, although they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. ‎

We should not be committed to or against any party -- other than obviously opposing blatant ‎anti-Semitic elements. But the enemy of our enemy is not necessarily our friend any more than ‎the friend of our friend is necessarily our friend.‎

Jews should not be committed to either liberals or conservatives. Each situation should be ‎reviewed on an independent, case-by-case basis and determined pragmatically on the basis of ‎what is considered beneficial to us. In most cases, this will almost invariably also parallel that ‎which is best for society as a whole. ‎

Jews are not monolithic and should display the flexibility which ensures that no political party ‎can automatically rely on our support. Our political influence will be immeasurably ‎strengthened when political parties recognize that to gain Jewish support, they must respond ‎to Jewish needs. ‎

Isi Leibler's website can be viewed at ‎He may be contacted at


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Islamoterror is the Problem, not 'Islamophobia' - Tarek Fatah

by Tarek Fatah

The problem is the Islamist victimhood agenda works well among guilt-ridden liberal Americans who are quick to buy into the propaganda of Islamophobia.

Originally published under the title "Terror the problem, not Islamophobia."

Few North American Muslim advocacy groups have been willing to condemn violent jihad.
One would have hoped that after the latest Islamic terror attack in America by the husband-wife team of Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, U.S. Islamic organizations would recognize it was time to condemn "jihad" itself and to stop playing the victim card. However, that was too much to ask.

Last year, in the face of growing ISIS-inspired jihadi terrorism, the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) along with other American Islamic organizations such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), formed the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO), which hosted a National Muslim Leadership Summit on Sunday in Washington, D.C.

ICNA is a conservative Islamic group formed in 1968 by Pakistani, Indian and Bangladeshi followers of the Jamaat-e-Islami in North America. Its stated goal is "to seek the pleasure of Allah " (for the) establishment of the Islamic system of life as spelled out in the Qur'an and the Sunnah (sayings) of Muhammad."

ICNA and CAIR have shunned liberal Muslim groups that are critical of armed jihad and Shariah as a source of public law.
ICNA states in its 2010 members' handbook, "Wherever the Islamic movement succeeds to establish true Islamic society, they will form coalition and alliances. This will lead to the unity of the Ummah (Muslim nation) and towards the establishment of the Khilafah (the Caliphate)."

Predictably, ICNA and CAIR did not invite secular or liberal Muslim American groups who are critical of the doctrine of armed jihad and Islamic Shariah as a source of public law.
Reacting to the formation of the USCMO, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, an ex-U.S. Navy officer who founded and heads the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, told Fox News:
CAIR may condemn the acts and means of radical violent Islamists, but no one should be fooled for a moment that CAIR's singular fixation (is) on stoking the flames and raising funds off the exaggerated narrative that Muslims are under siege by 'bigoted Americans' "¦ They are feeding the global movement against America.
(CAIR says its "formula on terrorism is simple and comprehensive: CAIR condemns terrorism whenever it happens, whoever commits it" and is a "natural enemy of violent extremists.")

After the two-day USCMO session, the coalition promised "to combat all forms of violent extremism in the homeland," noting Muslims are the major victims of terrorist groups like ISIS and frequent victims of Islamophobia. But it did not renounce the doctrine of armed jihad that feeds Islamic terrorism nor call for taking politics out of American mosques.

Instead, USCMO flexed its electoral muscle, deciding to conduct "a drive to register one million voters prior to the 2016 presidential election."

There was no call to cleanse the American Muslim house of all jihadi literature.

The problem is the Islamist victimhood agenda works well among guilt-ridden liberal Americans who are quick to buy into the propaganda of Islamophobia.

Indeed, two Muslim women recently took to the Washington Post to protest the bizarre infatuation U.S. liberals have developed towards the symbols of Islamism. As Asra Nomani and Hala Arafa wrote,
Americans are getting duped by the agenda of Muslims who argue that a woman's honour lies in her 'chastity' and unwittingly pushing a platform to put a hijab on every woman. Please do this instead: Do not wear a headscarf in 'solidarity' with the ideology that most silences us, equating our bodies with 'honour.. Stand with us instead ... against the ideology of Islamism that demands we cover our hair.
But is anyone listening to the voices of reason among North American Muslims?

Tarek Fatah, a founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress and columnist at the Toronto Sun, is a Robert J. and Abby B. Levine Fellow at the Middle East Forum.


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Iran's Next Supreme Leader? - Lawrence A. Franklin

by Lawrence A. Franklin

  • The process of selecting the successor to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei already seems underway.
  • President Rouhani, government cabinet officers, and deputies of the Majles (consultative assembly/parliament) usually have little to no influence in the vetting process of candidates.
  • The Revolutionary Guards, ranking intelligence officers, and the regime's plutocrats do not want to elevate anyone with an independent power base or a charismatic personality.
  • Whoever is ultimately selected, regime stability at least for the next few years seems assured: anti-regime networks remain shredded after the 2009 nationwide protests were violently suppressed.

While U.S. policymakers, media talking-heads and many think tank pundits are fixated on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and Tehran's nuclear weapons projects, the focus of Iran's power-brokers is on regime continuity and leadership succession. Iran's next parliamentary elections are scheduled for February 26, 2016.

The process of selecting the successor to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei already seems underway. Former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (1989-1997) hinted as much, according to a Reuters report. The aging first generation of the 1979 Islamic Revolution's leadership are determined to maintain regime stability during the transition to a new rahbar (leader) upon the retirement or death of Khamenei.

Those institutions that will play a large role in the selection process include: ranking members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), senior clergy in Qom, members of the Assembly of Experts,[1] and the Council of Guardians.[2]

President Hassan Rouhani, government cabinet officers, and deputies of the Majles (consultative assembly/parliament) usually have little to no influence in the vetting process of candidates.

Some Western media commentary, which can be inclined to mirror imaging -- assuming "they" are like "us" -- has hinted that former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani is a serious contender. This is not so. The 81-year-old Rafsanjani was long ago pushed to the side by political and religious hardline acolytes of the current leadership. As early as 2011, when Rafsanjani's personal website registered growing popularity in a poll, it was shut down. Another sign of Rafsanjani's marginalization is the decision by the Council of Guardians to disqualify him from submitting his candidacy for the Presidency in the 2012 presidential election. Still another is the dearth of coverage of the former president in Iran's media. In one recent case, Iranian state television and the regime's leading daily newspaper, Keyhan, appeared to excise his photo from a public event where he sat near Khamenei. Another sign is his reduced role in the 82-member Assembly of Experts, which holds its next election in February 2016. Rafsanjani was also defeated by Khamenei ally, Ayatollah Mohamad Yazdi, in a recent election for the Assembly's Speakership.

The likely successor to Khamenei will be chosen from a vetting process that is probably already underway.

The next Supreme Leader likely will be selected from the following pools of talent: Tehran Friday Prayer Leaders, the Council of Guardians, and Iran's Judiciary.

But if Khamenei's demise is sudden, an interim leader may be selected from Qom's several senior Ayatollahs.

The next Supreme Leader, however, is likely to be just as colorless as the present occupant of the office: the IRGC, ranking intelligence officers, and the regime's plutocrats do not want to elevate anyone with an independent power base or a charismatic personality. They do they want someone like Rafsanjani who is independently wealthy and considered politically unreliable by hardliners. Nor will they be content with the radical hardline cleric, Mesbah Yazdi, who once was close to former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. However, Yazdi has been of late an exuberant, public supporter of Khamenei, especially since Ahmadinejad's fall from favor.

One candidate who may be a serious contender for the office of Supreme Leader is the current chief of Iran's judiciary, Ayatollah Sadegh Larijani. Nevertheless, whoever is ultimately selected, regime stability at least for the next few years seems assured: anti-regime networks remain shredded after the 2009 nationwide protests were violently suppressed.

Out with the old, in with the new?
A serious contender to replace Ayatollah Khamenei (center) in the office of Supreme Leader is Ayatollah Sadegh Larijani (right). (Image source: Office of Supreme Leader)
Dr. Lawrence A. Franklin was the Iran Desk Officer for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. He also served on active duty with the U.S. Army and as a Colonel in the Air Force Reserve, where he was a Military Attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Israel.

[1] The Assembly of Experts is mandated by Article 111 of the Islamic Constitution of Iran to monitor the probity of the Supreme Leader's behavior. Theoretically, it has the power to remove the Supreme Leader. Its influence has waned during the later years of Ayatollah Khamenei's term as Supreme Leader. The Assembly consists of 86 members who are scholars and clerics. They are elected to eight-year terms.
[2] The Council of Guardians is a 12-member body of six clerics and six laymen who have the authority to rule on the constitutionality of all recommendations passed by the Majles (parliament). The Council is tasked with the responsibility of vetting all candidates for public office.

Lawrence A. Franklin was the Iran Desk Officer for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. He also served on active duty with the U.S. Army and as a Colonel in the Air Force Reserve, where he was a Military Attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Israel.


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.