Sunday, February 22, 2015



A bust of George Washington by Jean-Antoine Houdon.
A bust of George Washington by Jean-Antoine Houdon. Photo: The LIFE Picture Collection/Getty

The Making of the (First) President

How a conservative planter became the ‘indispensable man’ in revolution and war.

George Washington, for many Americans, remains locked in Gilbert Stuart’s austere portrait, an image to be venerated, but at a remove. The past decade alone has seen a cottage industry of Washingtonia attempting to transform a man of marble into a creature of flesh. “Washington’s Revolution,” by Robert Middlekauff, is part of this enterprise—a project to which he brings considerable credentials as a Bancroft Prize-winner who has written acclaimed works on colonial intellectual history and the American Revolution. And his contribution is a worthy one.
The conceit of Mr. Middlekauff’s book is to recount the American Revolution as it was experienced by Washington himself. This necessarily leaves out a good deal of the picture. For a panoramic view of the war, we must go elsewhere. A good place to start would be Mr. Middlekauff’s outstanding “The Glorious Cause” (1982). Nor is this biography a complete life, like Ron Chernow ’s Pulitzer Prize-winning “Washington: A Life” (2010). Rather, it ends with Washington’s retirement from military service after the British withdrawal. Mr. Middlekauff has something different in mind.

Washington’s Revolution

By Robert Middlekauff
Knopf, 358 pages, $30


George Washington, for many Americans, remains locked in Gilbert Stuart’s austere portrait, an image to be venerated, but at a remove. The past decade alone has seen a cottage industry of Washingtonia attempting to transform a man of marble into a creature of flesh. “Washington’s Revolution,” by Robert Middlekauff, is part of this enterprise—a project to which he brings considerable credentials as a Bancroft Prize-winner who has written acclaimed works on colonial intellectual history and the American Revolution. And his contribution is a worthy one.
The conceit of Mr. Middlekauff’s book is to recount the American Revolution as it was experienced by Washington himself. This necessarily leaves out a good deal of the picture. For a panoramic view of the war, we must go elsewhere. A good place to start would be Mr. Middlekauff’s outstanding “The Glorious Cause” (1982). Nor is this biography a complete life, like Ron Chernow ’s Pulitzer Prize-winning “Washington: A Life” (2010). Rather, it ends with Washington’s retirement from military service after the British withdrawal. Mr. Middlekauff has something different in mind.

What interests him is how Washington’s formative years molded the later man, how this conservative planter became a revolutionary leader, and how the war itself brought out innate qualities of character, resilience and fortitude in a provincial landowner that made him, in the historian James Thomas Flexner’s words, “the indispensable man” in the struggle for American independence.
While we may have read some of this material previously, it is in the nuances, the telling details and the subtle shadings where Mr. Middlekauff excels. As he relates, in a straightforward chronological account composing the first section of the book, Washington came from a cadet branch of the Virginia patrician class. The death of his father in 1743, when he was 11, put Washington on the margins of this society. It left him an outsider with just enough access to gain admission.
There is something touching about a callow Washington turning to a book of deportment, “Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation,” to learn lessons in manners that would stand him in good stead with his betters. Young Washington mastered the social graces expected of a patrician: dancing, fencing, riding. More important, he had a helpful patron, his older half-brother, Lawrence, who married into the powerful Fairfax clan.
Like many ambitious young men, Washington had an eye for the main chance. He became a surveyor for the Fairfaxes, conducting expeditions that made him familiar with wide stretches of the Blue Ridge Mountains and led him to begin acquiring his own stake in western lands. Eventually he came to manage and then acquire his brother’s estate of Mount Vernon. Washington was a military prodigy. He became adjutant of the Virginia militia with the rank of major at the age of 20. Shortly after, he confronted the French in the Ohio Valley in support of Virginia’s claims to that territory. By the outbreak of the French and Indian War in 1754, Washington was a lieutenant colonel of militia. He was all of 22. This conflict served as Washington’s training for the proving ground of the Revolution.
Three seminal events occurred at this time that were to anticipate his tenure as commander of the Continental Army. He was defeated by the French in an ill-considered clash at Fort Necessity in Pennsylvania, but he was resolute in defeat and learned from his mistakes. A year later, he fought bravely under Gen. Edward Braddock in the British debacle against a force of French and Indians near Fort Duquesne but saw that British regulars could be beaten. He had won Braddock’s respect, but, given the innate British disdain for colonials, Washington could not gain a commission in the Royal Army, a rebuff that instilled a lifelong resentment against the British. Their failure to make Washington an officer in their military would cost England an empire.
Mr. Middlekauff paints anew the familiar scenes of Washington’s war: Washington’s driving the British from Boston in 1775, his humiliating defeat in New York, his retreat across the Hudson and through New Jersey while being pursued by the British, his turning the tables on the enemy at Trenton and Princeton, and the inconclusive warfare of the next several years, with Washington losing more battles than he won but keeping the army intact until a reversal of fortune and the final victory over Cornwallis at Yorktown in 1781.
As Mr. Middlekauff reminds us, the odds against Washington were overwhelming. He led a recombinant army that flourished in the spring and faded in the winter. Its ranks were riddled with Thomas Paine’s sunshine soldiers and summer patriots, who could not altogether be blamed for their defections because they were ill-paid, ill-clad, ill-fed and poorly armed.
In attempting to forge a Continental Army, Washington had to compete with state militias that offered better terms to their recruits. His appeals for more support from the feckless Continental Congress fell on deaf ears. The travails of Valley Forge were only a dramatic symbol of the suffering and disarray that affected his ragged troops throughout the war.
And yet he prevailed. It is here that Mr. Middlekauff comes to the fore, demonstrating Washington’s qualities of toughness, adaptability and endurance. Also audacity, stunning the British and Hessians at Trenton and Princeton with his back to the wall. As Mr. Middlekauff writes: “Washington’s strike at Trenton and Princeton revealed a side of his character not often seen: a willingness to take chances. He had allowed a part of his fierce energy to come out, and the consequences were especially pleasing to him, not simply because his daring paid off, but also because he had thrust himself into the heart of the fighting.” His crossing of the Delaware in December 1776 was as much a political stroke as a military one, since it heartened a dispirited patriot cause and marred British hopes for a quick victory.
His men adored him; they also respected him and feared his wrath. He lost battles but fought a war of maneuver that ultimately unnerved and wore down the enemy. He was willing to cede ground to keep his forces in the field. He was a skillful manager, holding the army together to enable it to fight another day. He showed amazing forbearance in overlooking the slights of rival generals and second-guessing politicians. And when France entered the war on the American side, he demonstrated diplomatic skill in mobilizing a joint force to trap Cornwallis.
The American Revolution took more than eight years and was a near-run thing till almost the end. Washington was there for the duration. It was only by sheer will that he outlasted the formidable power of the British Empire. To be sure, he was fortunate in his foes: dilatory British generals who won battles but failed to forcefully pursue and crush a wounded enemy. And he was lucky in battle, appearing almost invincible to the bullets whizzing around him.
Imposing in stature, Washington faced down mutinies of sergeants in Pennsylvania and officers in Newburgh, N.Y., both over the lack of pay and pensions. It was at Newburgh in March 1783, as the war wound down, where his mastery of the grand gesture was manifested to dramatic effect. Mr. Middlekauff’s rendition is compelling: Washington “feared that if the army moved against the Congress, the Revolution and the new nation might be lost.” In assuring his officers that they would receive just compensation, Washington presented a letter from a congressman. But he had difficulty reading the text, causing him to stumble over the words. “He then stopped and pulled his spectacles from his pocket, saying as he did so, ‘Gentleman, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my country.’ ” He left his men in tears. The mutiny was over.
The trajectory from an ambitious young Washington’s studying “The Rules of Civility” to the weary warrior at Newburgh urging his officers to listen to their better angels provides the substance of Mr. Middlekauff’s book. In between we are treated to Washington’s travails, sometimes too often. The space might have been better used to inform the reader of what was going on in the rest of the war, outside Washington’s orbit.
This being said, Mr. Middlekauff has provided a valuable one-volume account of Washington’s ascendancy. His triumph over the British was a feat that probably no one else could have achieved. Without his inspired leadership, the Declaration of Independence might have been little more than a piece of paper. Mr. Middlekauff concludes by reminding us that the greatest thing Washington accomplished was what he didn’t do. At war’s end in 1783, he handed his commission back to Congress and went home. Washington chose the role of Cincinnatus over Caesar. His insistence on civil supremacy over the military during the war carried through to the peace, providing the cornerstone for the future democratic republic, the glorious cause for which he had fought.
—Mr. Schwartz formerly supervised the book pages of Newsday and was an editor in the culture section of the New York Times.

Friday, February 20, 2015



Barack Hussein Obama flashes the Muslim shahada to delegates of the US-African Leaders Conference in Washington DC in August 2014.

by Pamela Geller
Here is just a small sampling of Islamic State jihadists making the jihad gesture:
American Muslim Jakeem Nolen, who beheaded co-worker Colleen Hufford in Oklahoma, making the Islamic State finger gesture:
“Obama and the Muslim Gang Sign,” By F. W. Burleigh, American Thinker, February 18, 2015
Is President Obama a Muslim? A lot has been written about this, but if photographs speak louder than words, then a photo taken at last August’s U.S.-African Leaders’ Summit in Washington D.C. might shed considerable light.
It shows Barack Hussein Obama flashing the one-finger affirmation of Islamic faith to dozens of African delegates.
The Associated Press took this astonishing photo as the African dignitaries joined Obama, who hosted the event, in a State Department auditorium for a group photograph. It was published in an article in Britain’s Daily Mail, and it was the only use ever of the photo.
The one-finger display is the distinctive Muslim gang sign: The index finger points straight up while the thumb wraps underneath and presses against the digital phalange of the middle finger. The remaining fingers are squeezed against the palm in order to highlight the extended forefinger. The extended finger is symbolic of the one-God concept of Muhammad and is understood by all believers to be a symbolic shahada, the Muslim affirmation of faith: There is but one God and Muhammad is his messenger.
Thus when believers stick their index finger in the air, they demonstrate they are partisans of Muhammad’s God concept. And they also affirm their belief in Muhammad’s claim he was the interface between God and man. They also demonstrate they are part of the umma, the exclusive transtribal supertribe of believers that Muhammad started 1,400 years ago.
With his forefinger in the air, Obama affirmed his membership in this tribe
ISIS fighter displays the gang sign. To Muslims, the extended forefinger is symbolic of the fundamental belief of Islam: There is but one God and Muhammad is his messenger.
The Daily Mail editors did not understand what they were looking at. They captioned it “finger wagging” by Obama. But the African dignitaries understood, and a range of reactions can be detected among the ones who observed the gesture: amusement, surprise, curiosity, disapproval, contempt. Note the reactions of Abdelilah Berkirane, the prime minister of Morroco pictured just behind Obama’s left shoulder, and Ibrahim Boubacas Keita, the president of Mali in white garb and hat. They are Muslims through and through, and they are all smiles. They knew what Obama’s upright forefinger meant.
The reaction of Togo president Faure Gnassingbe, at the top row second to the left, is less approving. Through his face you can read the mind of this Sorbonne- and George Washington University educated leader. His mind is screaming, “You gotta be kidding!”
Gnassingbe’s country is squeezed between Benin and the Ivory Coast and is not far from Nigeria and its Boko Haram plague — perhaps a two-hour flight in a slow Cessna from Togo’s capital to the Nigerian capital, less than an hour in something faster. At the time of the Washington conference, Boko Haram’s leader Abubakar Shekau had just declared Borno State in northeastern Nigeria as the seat of his caliphate. Massacres of entire villages were taking place; only a few months earlier nearly three hundred girls were abducted from a Borno secondary school.
Togo has seven million people, 50 percent animists, 30 percent Christian. The remainder are Muslims, part of the umma. Gnassingbe and all other non-Muslims of Togo have reason to worry about radicalization of some of these members of the transtribal supertribe of Muhammad who reside among them. And so his look of disdain. “You gotta be kidding.”
Maybe it was Obama’s idea of a joke, but that is unlikely. The finger in the air was a position statement brazenly stated. His entire administration has been a promotion of Islam at home and abroad, and just cataloging the evidence would fill a book. He has made this country cozy for Islam, from ordering NASA to make Muslims feel good about themselves to calling ISIS beheading victim Peter Kassig by the Muslim name that he had adopted in the vain hope of saving his life.
If only Obama’s coziness were limited to such gestures, but from the very beginning of his administration, he labored to topple the strongman governments that had kept a lid on Islamic extremism: Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen. Overthrowing the Syrian government was also part the program, not yet achieved but still possible. The methodology of each was a tactic from old-school radicalism: stir up domestic trouble that triggers a crackdown, then use the reaction to discredit the government and as a pretext for stirring up greater cycles of trouble until the targeted regime is replaced.
Obama is comfortable with Islam’s extreme. He arms such people throughout the Middle East. He has let them into our government. He supported the Muslim Brotherhood’s Muhammad Morsi as the replacement for Hosni Mubarak, a staunch US ally and enemy of the Muslim Brotherhood, and threatened and bullied Egypt when a massive revolt replaced Morsi with a religious moderate.
The thread of all of these efforts was the reestablishment of the Islamic caliphate, the line of successors of Muhammad that ended nearly a century ago with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. This has always been a Muslim Brotherhood objective. In their grandiose plans, the reestablished caliphate would stretch across the Middle East with Jerusalem as its capital. The glory of Islam resurrected! These people aspire to world domination, and the caliphate would serve as the base for an ever-expanding war on the world until domination is achieved. That was always the goal of their role model. Muhammad ordered his followers to make Islam the only religion — to create a universal umma. As with Obama, they are just following orders.
The caliphate was resurrected last year, only it is not in the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood — not yet anyway. However it came about, the caliphate was Obama’s creation, and he has only half-heartedly pushed back against it. Now he has asked the U.S. Congress for authorization for use of military force against what he created. What is Obama up to with this? In everything he does, mischief is the purpose. What mischief does he intend now?
There is nothing in Obama’s head that is American. He is an antithetical American, a polar opposite of its values that he is routinely undermining. He is an unabashed member of the transtribal supertribe that Muhammad created 1,400 years ago; he is of the umma, not of America. His finger in the air at the African Leaders’ Conference is unambiguous evidence.
And it is evidence that you have been had, America. Have you ever been had.

Pamela Geller’s commitment to freedom from jihad and Shariah shines forth in her books

Posted in MUSLIMS | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment | Edit



Bibi: Why I’m speaking to Congress

Excerpted from the Israeli prime minister’s remarks Monday in Jerusalem to the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.

Why am I going to Washington? Because, as prime minister of Israel, it’s my obligation to do everything in my power to prevent the conclusion of a bad deal that could threaten the survival of the State of Israel.
The current proposal to Iran would endanger Israel. It would enable Iran to build its first nuclear device within an unacceptably short time. And it would allow Iran to build an industrial capability to enrich uranium that could provide the fuel for many bombs in the coming years.
A regime that openly calls for Israel’s destruction would thus have finally the means to realize its genocidal aims.
Now mind you, I’m not opposed to any deal with Iran. I’m opposed to a bad deal with Iran. And I believe this is a very bad deal.
I’m certainly not opposed to negotiations. On the contrary: No country has a greater stake in the peaceful resolution of the Iranian nuclear question than does Israel.
But the current proposal won’t solve the problem. It will perpetuate and aggravate the problem. It would provide a path for Iran to become a nuclear power. And so it’s very important that I speak about this in Washington.
Why am I going to Congress? Because Israel has been offered the chance to make its case on this crucial issue before the world’s most important parliament; because a speech before Congress allows Israel to present its position to the elected representatives of the American people and to a worldwide audience; because Congress has played a critical role in applying pressure to the Iranian regime — the very pressure that brought the ayatollahs to the negotiating table in the first place, and because Congress may well have a say on any final deal.
I think the real question is: How could any responsible Israeli prime minister refuse to speak to Congress on a matter so important to Israel’s survival?
How could anyone refuse an invitation to speak on a matter that could affect our very existence when such an invitation is offered?
Why go now? The deadline for reaching an agreement with Iran is March 24. That date drives the speech. Now is the time for Israel to make its case — before it’s too late.
Would it be better to complain about a deal that threatens the security of Israel after it’s signed? It’s more responsible to speak out now to try to influence the negotiations while they’re still ongoing.
The whole point of Zionism is that the Jewish people would no longer be spectators to the decision-making that determines our fate. We were once powerless. We were once voiceless. We couldn’t even speak on our own behalf. Well, now we can and we do.
The answer to all three questions is the same. Why Congress? Why Washington? Why now? Because of the grave dangers posed by the deal on the table right now.
I don’t see this in partisan terms. The survival of Israel is not a partisan issue. It concerns everyone, all supporters of Israel of every political stripe.
The fight against militant Islamic terrorism is not a partisan issue. The battle against the Islamic State, which just beheaded 21 Christians, is not. And the effort to prevent the Islamic Republic from building nuclear weapons, that’s not a partisan issue either.
The pursuit of nuclear weapons by Iran is the most urgent security challenge facing the world. The greatest danger facing humanity is the possibility that any movement or any regime of militant Islam will arm itself with weapons of mass destruction.
Everything that we see in our region now will pale by comparison. Everything that we see in Europe will pale by comparison.
When a militant Islamic regime that is rampaging through the region right now — that’s what Iran is doing, it’s conducting a rampage through the region — when such a regime has nuclear weapons, the whole world will be in peril.
Look at what Iran is doing now without nuclear weapons. States are collapsing — and Iran is plunging forward. It already controls four capitals.
It’s trying to envelope Israel with three terrorist tentacles — Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and now it’s trying to build with its Hezbollah proxies a third front in the Golan.
With nuclear weapons, such a regime would be infinitely more dangerous to everyone, not only to Israel.
Can I guarantee that my speech in Congress will prevent a dangerous deal with Iran from being signed? Honestly, I don’t know. No one knows.
But I do know this — it’s my sacred duty as prime minister of Israel to make Israel’s case. On March 3, I’ll fulfill that duty, representing all the citizens of Israel before the two houses of Congress.
And I’ll make the best case for Israel that I can, knowing that our case is just, that our case is sound and that our case offers the best hope to resolve this issue peacefully.
Filed under

Monday, February 9, 2015



Let's hear it for a Quebec mayor...
Or as the commercial promoting pork says
“put some pork on your fork”



Muslim parents demanded the abolition of pork in all the school canteens of a Montreal suburb.

The mayor of the Montreal suburb of Dorval,has refused, and the town clerk sent a note to all parents to explain why...

“Muslims must understand that they have to adapt to Canada and Quebec, its customs, its traditions, its way of life, because that's where they chose to immigrate.

“They must understand that they have to integrate and learn to live in Quebec.

“They must understand that it is for them to change their lifestyle, not the Canadians who so generously welcomed them.

“They must understand that Canadians are neither racist nor xenophobic, they accepted many immigrants before Muslims (whereas the reverse is not true, in that Muslim states do not accept non-Muslim immigrants).

“That no more than other nations, Canadians are not willing to give up their identity, their culture.

“And if Canada is a land of welcome, it's not the Mayor of Dorval who welcomes foreigners, but the Canadian-Quebecois people as a whole.

“Finally, they must understand that in Canada (Quebec) with its Judeo-Christian roots, Christmas trees, churches and religious festivals, religion must remain in the private domain.

The municipality of Dorval was right to refuse any concessions to Islam and Sharia.

“For Muslims who disagree with secularism and do not feel comfortable in Canada, there are 57 beautiful Muslim countries in the world, most of them under-populated and ready to receive them with open halal arms in accordance with Shariah.

“If you left your country for Canada, and not for other Muslim countries, it is because you have considered that life is better in Canada than elsewhere.

“Ask yourself the question, just once, “Why is it better here in Canada than where you come from?”

“A canteen with pork is part of the answer.”

Friday, February 6, 2015



Best description of Barack Obama ever written.
First paragraph of Mr. Wheeler's statement is perfect.
Jack Wheeler is a brilliant man who was the author of Reagan's strategy to break the back of the Soviet Union with the star wars race and expose their inner weakness. For years he wrote a weekly intelligence update that wasextremely interesting and well structured and informative.
He consults(ed) with several mega corporations on global trends and the future, etc. He is in semi-retirement now.
He is a true patriot with a no-nonsense approach to everything.
He is also a somewhat well-known mountain climber and adventurer.
Written by Dr. Jack Wheeler
The O-man, Barack Hussein Obama, is an eloquently tailored empty suit. No resume, no accomplishments, no experience, no original ideas, no understanding of how the economy works, no understanding of how the world works, no balls, nothing but abstract, empty rhetoric devoid of real substance.
He has no real identity. He is half-white, which he rejects. The rest of him is mostly Arab, which he hides but is disclosed by his non-African Arabic surname and his Arabic first and middle names as a way to triply proclaim his Arabic parentage to people in Kenya . Only a small part of him is African Black from his Luo grandmother, which he pretends he is exclusively.
What he isn't, not a genetic drop of, is 'African-American,' the descendant of enslaved Africans brought to America chained in slave ships. He hasn't a single ancestor who was a slave. Instead, his Arab ancestors were slave owners. Slave-trading was the main Arab business in East Africa for centuries until the British ended it.
Let that sink in: Obama is not the descendant of slaves, he is the descendant of slave owners.
Thus he makes the perfect Liberal Messiah.
It's something Hillary doesn't understand - how some complete neophyte came out of the blue and stole the Dem nomination from her. Obamamania is beyond politics and reason. It is a true religious cult, whose adherents reject Christianity yet still believe in Original Sin, transferring it from the evil of being human to the evil of being white.
Thus Obama has become the white liberals' Christ, offering absolution from the Sin of Being White. There is no reason or logic behind it, no faults or flaws of his can diminish it, no arguments Hillary could make of any kind can be effective against it. The absurdity of Hypocrisy Clothed In Human Flesh being their Savior is all the more cause for liberals to worship him:
Credo quia absurdum, I believe it because it is absurd.
Thank heavens that the voting majority of Americans remain Christian and are in no desperate need of a phony savior.
He is ridiculous and should not be taken seriously by any thinking American.
And yet he got elected, not once but twice. Thanks to those that did not think it was important to vote for freedom and those that were willing to give up their freedoms for entitlements.
Remember you don't have to be on a southern plantation to be a slave, if you are dependent on government entitlements you just have a different slave owner.

Sunday, February 1, 2015



Why Obama Needs to Pretend the Taliban Aren’t Terrorists
The administration makes a desperate and indefensible claim.

No doubt because of my background investigating, prosecuting, and studying terrorism, the cynical claim by White House spokesmen that the Taliban is not a terrorist organization has annoyed me even more than the Obama administration’s nonstop lying usually does. No surprise then that I could be found railing about it on The Kelly File Thursday night.
In that spirit, ten thoughts for the weekend:
1. Under federal law, there are only three requirements for a group to qualify as a “foreign terrorist organization”: It has to be (a) foreign, (b) engaged in “terrorist activity” (bombings, assassinations, etc., carried out to intimidate people and change policy), and (c) a national-security threat to the United States. The law that covers this is Sec. 1189(a) of Title 8, U.S. Code, from the federal Immigration and Nationality Act. It’s here, and it’s just the first few lines — even a president who routinely ignores the laws he is sworn to execute faithfully should be able to make some time for it, maybe on the plane ride between the golf course and the Saudi palace.
2. Obviously, even if it were true, as posited by Messrs. Schultz and Earnest (speaking for President Obama), that the Taliban is concerned only with Afghanistan, not with the global jihad, that would be irrelevant. They easily fit the definition of a foreign terrorist organization.
3. Of course, it is not true that the Taliban is concerned only with Afghanistan. The administration’s risible claim to the contrary is part of its campaign to bleach the Islam out of radical Islam. Islamic supremacism, the ideology that fuels jihadist terror, is a global conquest ideology. Obama wants you to believe that there is just a dizzying array of small, disconnected, strange-sounding, indigenous “insurgent” groups that are not joined by any unifying ideology — the Afghan Taliban (not to be confused with the Pakistani Taliban), Hamas, Hezbollah, the Haqqani Network, Boko Haram, al-Nusra, Ansar al-Sharia, the sundry jihadist franchises that invoke al-Qaeda’s name (in the Arabian Peninsula, in the Islamic Maghreb, in the Indian subcontinent . . . ), and so on. You are not to see them as a united front against the West, but instead as animated by strictly parochial political and territorial disputes. The strategy, a disingenuous elevation of semantics over substance, is designed to minimize the global jihadist threat to the West that has intensified on Obama’s watch and has undeniable roots in a supremacist interpretation of Islam.
4. You need not take my word for it when it comes to the Taliban’s ideological connection to the global jihad. Instead, just look at what they do. What did the Taliban do when they ruled Afghanistan? They willfully allowed their territory to be used as a launch pad for attacks against the United States (the 1998 embassy bombings in eastern Africa, the 2000 bombing of the Cole, and the 9/11 atrocities). And after 9/11, when, by simply handing bin Laden & Co. over to the United States, they could have stayed in power and avoided an invasion of the Afghanistan they are said to be preoccupied with, what did they do? At enormous cost to themselves, they tried to shelter al-Qaeda. In the 14 years since, they have continued to abet the global jihadist campaign, and have reveled in making war against the United States — a war they now understandably think they will win.
5. The Taliban’s continued alliance with al-Qaeda’s global jihad is of a piece with Hamas’s self-proclaimed incorporation in the Muslim Brotherhood’s global ambitions, and with the forward-militia role Hezbollah plays for Iran, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s revolutionary state that exports its Shiite version of jihad. All of these actors perceive themselves as enmeshed in a civilizational struggle against the West. We can’t erase that by pretending there is no animating ideology, pretending that they can be pacified if we satisfy their local grievances.

6. This business of distinguishing “insurgents” from “terrorists” is nonsense. An insurgency is just a domestic uprising (in the sense that the insurgent is from the country in which he is rebelling). When insurgents use terrorist tactics they are domestic terrorists. It may make Obama feel better to say that his pal Bill Ayers was an “insurgent,” but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t a terrorist.
7. The most disturbing facet of the “insurgent” canard is that Obama is buying the logic of such Islamic supremacists as the Muslim Brotherhood and Turkey’s president Recep Tayyip Erdogan. They claim that Hamas and Hezbollah are not terrorist organizations (as American law designates them to be) but domestic political organizations that engage not in terrorism but in “resistance” — a righteous fight against “injustice” and “occupation” in their homelands.

8. Obama, of course, is not approving of the Taliban’s tactics and goals. But he wants you to see them as domestic insurgents because progressives believe insurgents should be negotiated with and brought into a political settlement — and to the extent insurgents go overboard in their aggression, progressives believe they should be prosecuted in the civilian justice system, not fought militarily like wartime enemies.

9. In the United States, Obama is operating in a political environment where the public — based on longstanding prudential American policy — believes we should not negotiate with terrorists because that encourages and legitimizes their savage methods. Similarly, the public strongly believes international terrorists are enemies who must be defeated, not defendants who must be indicted. Obama knows he is negotiating with, intends to settle with, and eventually will leave Afghanistan to the tender mercies of, the Taliban. Therefore, the administration is desperate that you not look at the Taliban as terrorists
10. But they are terrorists.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.

Tuesday, January 20, 2015



Take Action: Two justices should recuse themselves from ‘gay’ marriage cases
Monday, January 19, 2015
Dear Supporter,
U.S. Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg should recuse themselves from any cases involving the homosexual marriage issue on the basis that they have conducted same-sex marriage ceremonies.
The justices announced last Friday they will review an appellate ruling that upheld bans on same-sex unions in four states. The case will be argued in April and a decision is expected by late June.
Justice Kagan performed a September 21 same-sex marriage for her former law clerk and his partner Patrick Pearsall in Maryland. Justice Ginsburg performed a same-sex marriage at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington DC in August 2013.

Both of these justices' personal and private actions actively endorsing gay marriage clearly indicate how they would vote on same-sex marriage cases before the Supreme Court.
Congress has directed that federal judicial officers must disqualify themselves from hearing cases in specified circumstances. Title 28, Section 455 of the United States Code states "any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."
Both Kagan and Ginsburg have not only been partial to same-sex marriage, they have proven themselves to be activists in favor of it!
In order to ensure the Court's integrity and impartiality, Justices Kagan and Ginsburg must recuse themselves from same-sex marriage cases.

Congress has an obligation to Americans that members of the Supreme Court are held to the highest standard of integrity. The law demands it and the people deserve it.
Urge your members of Congress to privately and publicly call on Justices Kagan and Ginsburg to properly and legally recuse themselves from cases involving same-sex marriage.

Share This Alert with Your Friends and Family:
Connect With Us:
American Family Association
P O Drawer 2440  |  Tupelo, MS 38803  |  1-662-844-5036
Copyright ©2015 American Family Association. All Rights Reserved