Obama visits Mosque; Spreads Lies and Skews History

Editor’s Note – Obama chose to visit his first Mosque during his Presidency and he picked a winner – one with a long history of anti-American activity all the while spreading lies and skewing the history concerning Muslims in America and their role in our early history.

Of course, like some ardent Muslims who believe it is okay to tell a lie where the ends justify the means, they even have a name for it, “Taqiyya” and they employ it often to support the core goals of shariah law – world domination. Obama just helped in spreading that message ignoring the evidence of this Mosque’s ties to terror.

Why Did Obama Tell Brazen Lies at the Baltimore Mosque?

By Tom Tancredo – Breitbart

That President Obama told a series of brazen lies about Islam in his December 3 Baltimore speech is being well documented by experts on Islam.

Why he did it – and why the Left in America is defending those lies — is more important for patriots to understand.

AP/Pablo Martinez Monsivais
AP/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

Obama chose as the venue for his praise of Islam as a religion of peace and tolerance the same Baltimore mosque that in 2012 was under FBI scrutiny because its former imam condoned suicide bombing and one of its members was arrested for plotting to bomb a federal building.

Why did Obama feel a need to help “rehabilitate” the mosque reputation by selecting it as the site for his speech?

The full text of Obama’s speech at the Baltimore mosque is available on the White House website and has been helpfully reprinted by the New York Times.

Anyone who thinks my criticism of the speech is unwarranted is invited to read the full text and tell me where I have misrepresented his remarks.

Of course, the speech had some platitudes about our nation’s history of tolerance and freedom of speech, and we all support the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of worship. But even in recounting America’s historic commitment to religious tolerance, Obama misrepresents the Founders’ views of Islam.

  • Jefferson did indeed include “Mohammadans” – as Muslims were known in those times– as entitled to freedom of worship, but he included them for the purpose of making clear that even the most extreme, non-Christian religions were welcome in America.
  • But in 1805, President Jefferson had a different encounter with Islam when he sent the U.S. Marines to fight the young nation’s first battle on foreign soil –against Muslims in Tunisia and Tripoli who were kidnapping American, French and British sailors and holding them for ransom. They were called the Barbary Pirates.

But Obama’s gift for fabrication was not limited to mischaracterizing Islam’s place in American history. He also misquoted the Koran—more than once.

  • Obama bizarrely invented a new translation of the word “Islam” itself, saying incorrectly that the word comes from the same root as the Muslim word for peace—salam, as in, “peace be with you.” In fact, in Arabic, the word “Islam” means “submission,” not peace, meaning submission to Allah and the teachings of his prophet, Mohammad.
  • This is remarkably – and not accidentally—parallel to orthodox Marxist-Leninist doctrine as spelled out in the Communist Manifesto that true world peace is possible only with the worldwide victory of communism, which brings the “classless society” — the end of the presumed source of all conflict, private property and capitalism. To the disciples of the Prophet Mohammad, peace is possible only with the subjugation of all infidels.
  • Obama also misquoted Islamic scripture in parts of his speech, even going so far as to suggest that Islamic teaching on killing is the same as the Christian, which is patently untrue. Several sections of the Koran and other sacred texts teach that infidels and “apostates” must be killed if they do not submit to Islam.
  • Contrary to Obama, Islam has no equivalent to the Christian biblical teaching of the Golden Rule. Obama’s efforts to suggest a kindred spirit uniting Islam and Christianity is pure hogwash and can only be called propaganda.

Similar lies and whitewashes of Islam have been chronicled by respected scholars of Islam like Robert Spencer. You can start with Spencer’s The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran, and then read The Muslim Brotherhood in America.

It is true that many Muslims – indeed, a majority of Muslims– do not follow the teachings of the Koran and the words of the Prophet Mohammad. There are indeed millions of “moderate Muslims” in the United States who do not support the goals of jihadists.

But the important point is that those millions of “moderate” Muslims are moderate precisely because they are not devout and do not follow all of the teachings of the Koran. That is one of the truths tht Obama denies in his Baltimore speech.

But it’s not enough to list the many lies in the Baltimore speech; that’s the easy part. The more important thing is to understand WHY Obama and the entire liberal-left establishment would want to lie about Islam.

  • Why does the President of the United States distort and defend the ideological fountainhead of America’s number one enemy, radical Islam?
  • Why does the Left and practically the entire media establishment continually mislead Americans about the true character of Islam?
  • Why does Obama insist on saying “Islam must not be blamed for the actions of a few,” when legitimate polls reveal that from 15% to 30% of all Muslims sympathize with the goals of the jihadists?

Why, Mr. President?

The easy answer would be if Obama is a secret Muslim and so, psychologically, cannot admit the truth about his own chosen religion when so many of his brethren are engaged in murderous attacks on this country. That may be true, but since we cannot read Obama’s heart, we can’t know that for certain.

Even if that were true, it would not explain the duplicity of millions of other Americans and Europeans who willingly put on blinders each morning, who knowingly and continuously spout lies about the “religion of peace.”

The fundamental reason for the Orwellian passion for not only accepting the lie but actively promoting it is the commitment to the universal leftist maxim — blame the victim.

  • To a leftist crusader for “social justice,” when a man walking down the street minding his own business is attacked, robbed and beaten to death by a gang of thugs, it was his own fault: he invited the attack by tolerating a society with inequality of wealth.
  • In the same way, to devout Muslims, a woman walking alone without a male escort is inviting rape. This is not a tenet of “radical” Islam, it is a tent of orthodox Islam.

In the same vein, to the Left, America is immutably and irredeemably so sinful and so guilty of so many historical wrongs that Islam is right to reject assimilation.

  • There are no “innocent civilians” killed by terrorists: Leftist University of Colorado pseudo scholar Ward Churchill was right when he said the 2000 Americans who died in the Twin Towers on 9/11 “deserved what they got.”
  • America’s historical sins of racism, sexism, and capitalist exploitation disqualify us from rendering any moral judgment against Islam.

While it is true that Islam’s religious beliefs about women, gays and all “infidels” are repugnant to progressives, this does not mean progressives should criticize Islam. To serious progressives, Islam is a victim, not an aggressor. Because Islam is waging war on the corrupt and sinful West, the maxim, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” rules the day.

The Left has formed an unwritten but soulful strategic alliance with Islam against the traditional values and institutions of Western Civilization.

  • This unspoken strategic political alliance justifies – indeed requires– remaining silent about Islam’s transgressions. It justifies calling the most intolerant religion on the planet a religion of peace.
  • It justifies telling fairytales about Islam, a religion which in its most sacred texts calls for the conquest and killing of other religious faithful if they will not voluntarily convert or submit to Islam and Islamic Sharia law.

Obama lies about Islam because admitting the truth would jeopardize the alliance between Islam and the Left, an alliance that threatens not only Israel but every nation on the plant that does not agree to shout “Allahu Akbar!” which translates not as Allah is great butAllah is the greatest!”

Obama’s speech to the Islamic Society of Baltimore was a predictable follow-up to his 2009 speech to the Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo, where he asked forgiveness for America’s past sins and pledged to be an equal partner with Islamic nations.

The real question, then is not why Obama lies about Islam, it is why so many people tolerate it, applaud it, and join in the lies and the smears against those who dare to tell the truth.

Trump: Obama is a Clear and Present Danger to America

Editor’s Note – This article was republished by Special Operations Speaks.

Obama welcomes an Islamist Trojan horse: Consider who is selecting our refugees

By Jeffrey T. Kuhner – World Tribune

“President Obama is a threat to our country,” Donald Trump told me in a recent interview.

He’s right. Mr. Obama now poses a clear and present danger to America.

His stubborn insistence on resettling so-called “refugees” from Syria threatens to Balkanize our country and subvert it from within. The president is willing to potentially sacrifice countless Americans on the altar of liberal multiculturalism. He is gambling with our lives.

Obama’s resettlement plan is replete with lies and progressive propaganda. At first, the administration said it only wanted 10,000 refugees to enter the country. Now, the White House is openly talking about allowing 250,000 per year.

In fact, the president recently announced that his goal is an “open-ended” refugee resettlement effort — meaning millions could be allowed to flood our country.

If-you-dont-defend-liberty-get-UN-Islam-or-communism

Moreover, who are these refugees? The answer is simple: They are predominantly young Muslim men. In Europe, nearly 80 percent of the migrants pouring into countries, such as Germany, Sweden and France, are Muslim males in their teens and 20s. In other words, they are the very profile of potential Islamic Jihadists.

Yet, while Europeans are waking up to the civilizational invasion taking place, our morally arrogant liberal elites continue to peddle the fiction that only “widows and orphans” will be allowed to enter.

The administration also claims that the Muslim Syrian refugees are the “most thoroughly screened and vetted category of travelers” who can come into the United States.

That is another lie. For the Obama regime and its media allies are deliberately leaving out one salient fact: We do not pick the asylum-seekers, the United Nations does. In particular, it is the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Antonio Guterres, in coordination with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) that selects which refugees can be settled within our country.

It is not the State Department, Homeland Security or even the White House that chooses the refugees, but an anti-American leftist bureaucrat and a global Islamist organization.

Mr. Guterres is a self-described “socialist,” who champions open borders and repopulating First World nations with Third World peoples as part of a radical internationalist agenda to redistribute wealth. From 1999 until 2005, he was the president of Socialist International, a global network of over 160 Marxist and far-left-wing parties active in about 100 countries. Their goal: “one-world government” through unlimited immigration.

The OIC is an international Islamic body that consists of 57 Muslim nations. It has deep links to the Muslim Brotherhood. Based in Saudi Arabia, the OIC’s founding charter openly espouses the expansion of Sharia Law and defends what it calls “legitimate Jihad.” In other words, it is an Islamist front group.

Think about this: Obama is entrusting the security of Americans — enabling the very “refugees” who could be coming to a town or community near you — to U.N. leftist globalists and radical Islamists. His policy is not only irresponsible and reckless; it borders on the criminal.

trump-obama-christiansThe Islamic State of Iraq and Levant has already boasted it has infiltrated the waves of Muslim migrants with thousands of Jihadists.

In the Paris attacks, which killed 130 and wounded over 350 persons, ISIL made good on its threats: One of the terrorists managed to enter France posing as a “refugee” with a fake Syrian passport.

As Investor’s Business Daily reports, what Islamists are engaging in is what they call “hijra” — immigration Jihad. The aim of radical Muslims is to invade and conquer Western lands through mass migration.

“Muhammad told his followers to migrate and spread Islam in order to dominate all the lands of the world,” Ann Corcoran, the author of “Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America,” said in an interview with IBD.

“He said they were obliged to do so — and that’s exactly what they are doing now with the help and support of the U.N.”

The Boston Marathon terrorist bombings should have taught Americans the folly of welcoming “refugees” from Muslim hotspots. The Tsarnaevs were from Chechnya. They were allegedly “screened” and “vetted.”

Yet, this did not stop them from blowing up pressure cooker bombs at the finish line, murdering four innocent civilians and wounding over 260 — dozens of them maimed and crippled.

Their massacre was part of a larger war against the West to establish a global Islamic caliphate.

We are about to drink from a poisoned chalice. Obama is deliberately — and dangerously — bringing in an army of Muslim migrants. Like the Tsarnaevs and in France, some of them are bound to be Islamist butchers.

It is collective suicide masquerading as compassion. Americans must block his Trojan horse before it’s too late.


Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at WorldTribune.com and the host of “The Kuhner Report” weekdays 12-3 pm EST on WRKO AM-680 in Boston.

Be Sociable, Share!

Obama – Muslim Brotherhood Allegiance

Editor’s Note – As we here at SUA have witnessed, with more and more evidence coming to light, this administration is working “against” our American values. He has made our allies enemies and our enemies friends. They are not our friends. They hope to take our Nation over.

The Muslim Brotherhood is working to take over the world,  under the “Caliphate.” It is looking more and more like Obama is helping them, and it clear that he has aligned America with his Islamic friends.

Smoking-gun document said to prove Obama-Muslim Brotherhood ties

By, Garth Kant – World Net Daily

WASHINGTON – The White House isn’t commenting on the exposure of a secret presidential directive, but critics tell WND it confirms what they feared: The Obama administration has an official policy of backing so-called “moderate Islamists,” including the jihadist group the Muslim Brotherhood.

A source familiar with the document told the Washington Times the “policy of backing the Muslim Brotherhood is outlined in a secret directive called Presidential Study Directive-11, or PSD-11.”

The governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates officially consider the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, but the presidential directive reportedly shows the White House considers the group a “moderate” alternative to ISIS and al-Qaida.

Critics blasted that notion.

Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, who has written extensively on the subject, told WND the Muslim Brotherhood “is not moderate” and “there is no such thing as a moderate Islamist.”

andrew mccarthy

The identical response was given to WND by Iran specialist Clare Lopez of the Center for Security Policy.

“The Muslim Brotherhood is a jihadist organization, from the day of its founding and remains so to this day,” she said.

Whether violent or not, she said, all jihadists, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, seek the same two things: “Islamic governance and enforcement of Islamic law, or Shariah.”

Former Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who tried to launch an inquiry three years ago into Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the federal government, told WND, “It confirms the questions I originally asked of the inspector generals of five agencies.”

“The recent discovery of an Obama administration document evidencing support for the Muslim Brotherhood is unsurprising,” she said. “It merely confirms the consistent position of the White House’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood since Obama’s election.”

Frank Gaffney, former assistant secretary of defense during the Reagan administration, and president of the Center for Security Policy, said PSD-11 was part of a series of mistakes that “were the consequences of embracing, legitimating, funding and even arming the Muslim Brotherhood.”

“They will prove to be among President Obama’s worst security policy legacies — and that’s saying something!”

Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan went a step further than saying there are no moderate Islamists; he stated there is not even a moderate Islam.

A tweet from a supporter quoted Farrakhan as saying, “What is moderate Islam? There is no such thing,” during a speech at Shiloh Baptist Church in Washington, D.C., on June 1.

McCarthy is a New York Times bestselling author, Fox News analyst, contributing editor at National Review and a former adviser to the deputy secretary of defense. As chief assistant U.S. attorney in New York, he successfully prosecuted the perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing.

In his 2010 bestseller, “The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America,” McCarthy described an internal Muslim Brotherhood memorandum that revealed the groups’ grand plan to destroy the West from within by having its component organizations collude with credulous Western governments and how it had found the ideal partner in Obama.

farrakhan

McCarthy told WND, “The Muslim Brotherhood is not moderate — not in its theoretical orientation and, as we’ve seen in Egypt, not in practice when it has a chance to govern.

“And it is simply a fact that many of the world’s most violent and influential jihadists got their start in the Muslim Brotherhood. It is a gateway to violent jihadism — not in all cases, but in many.”

McCarthy has described non-violent jihad as just as great a threat as violent jihad, because they are both means to overthrow Western governments and install strict Islamic law, or Shariah.

He drolly observed: “Obviously, we prefer non-violent Islamists to violent Islamists. We’d also rather have pneumonia than cancer … that doesn’t make pneumonia desirable.”

In a recent article in which he described the government’s “cognitive dissonance in seeking out ‘moderate Islamists,’” McCarthy stressed, “If you want to say that some Islamists are not violent, that is certainly true. But that does not make them moderate.”

McCarthy explained in greater detail to WND how “non-violent” does not mean “moderate” when it comes to Islamists.

“‘Islamist’ is the term we apply to those who believe in Islamic supremacism, which is essentially the imposition of classical Shariah (which recognizes no separation between spiritual and political life).”

He called it “a system that rejects individual liberty and is deeply discriminatory against women, non-Muslims and homosexuals.”

“Consequently, it is not ‘moderate.’ A person with extreme, anti-Western views is not a moderate, regardless of whether he is willing to commit acts of terrorism to impose his views on society.”

Clare Lopez

Lopez, who honed her analytical acumen during 20 years of service as a CIA field operative, and who served as an instructor for military intelligence and Special Forces students, described the difference between violent and non-violent Islamic extremism as merely a difference in timing and tactics.

“ISIS, al-Qaida and Boko Haram for example, tend to stage violent attacks in an effort to destroy the will to resist among the enemy and also to punish the enemy, or infidel, for refusing to accept or implement or follow Islam faithfully.”

“On the other hand, ” she said, “the Muslim Brotherhood tends to take a longer-term approach that works patiently to infiltrate and subvert a target government, whether infidel or ‘unfaithful Muslim,’ from within.”

Lopez insisted it doesn’t make sense to work with any Islamist groups, “when all are jihadis and all want to destroy our civilization & subjugate us to Shariah.”

Bachmann referred to the Muslim Brotherhood document seized in an FBI raid on suspected terrorists “delineating their plan to destroy the ‘miserable house of the U.S. from within civilization through jihad.’”

McCarthy told WND the Obama administration did not originate the problem of Islamist infiltration of the U.S. government, but it has greatly exacerbated that problem.

“Obama officials have intentionally sought to ally with Islamic supremacists, even those connected to terrorist organizations, on the harebrained theory that these Islamists will promote stability — i.e., they will work with us against jihadist organizations like al-Qaida, even though they share al-Qaida’s Shariah ideology and hostility toward the West.”

Gaffney told WND that “such a policy shift was the predictable consequence of having individuals associated with the Brotherhood holding positions of influence in the Obama administration and/or serving as advisers to several of its senior members, including the President, himself.”

arab-spring-obama

He said examples of such individuals could be found in a course on his center’s website, along with a detailed treatment of the policy repercussions of such penetration.

The problem of increasing Islamist influence in America has been compounded, critics say, by the Obama administration’s policy of admitting tens of thousands of poorly vetted Muslims from countries where Islamism is prevalent.

“All the while,” said Bachmann, “knowing many of the Muslims would prefer living in Muslim societies dominated by Islamic Shariah law, a governance system known for its incompatibility with the U.S. Constitution.”

Making the problem even worse, she said, was how former secretary of state “Hillary Clinton embraced members of the Muslim Brotherhood by issuing visas to enter the U.S. to members of the Muslim Brotherhood and to other terrorist organizations, even though the U.S. Government listed them with terrorist affiliations.”

Bachmann was one of five Republican Congress members who stirred bipartisan controversy in 2012 by raising concern about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration in the nation’s capital.

She also publicly questioned the role of Clinton’s top aide, Huma Abedin, because of her and her family’s extensive documented ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

McCarthy told WND that Abdedin’s role in State Department policy still should be explored in light of her considerable Islamist connections.

“Her role should not be overstated — Hillary Clinton, like President Obama, has a record of sympathizing with Islamists, and Ms. Abedin’s influence on U.S. policy is more an effect than a cause of her boss’s predilections.”

“Still,” he added, “the State Department has aggressively pushed Obama’s policy of empowering the Muslim Brotherhood. It would be foolish to assume that the implementation of that policy was unconnected to the installation of pro-Islamists in high-ranking policy positions.”

Gaffney told WND: “It is deeply regrettable that the sorts of serious and legitimate questions about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of key agencies posed by Reps. Bachmann, Franks, Gohmert, Rooney and Westmoreland in June of 2012 were never the subject of investigations — either before or subsequently — by the Inspectors General of the Departments of State, Treasury, Defense and Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.”

“Had they been,” he speculated, “we might have averted myriad disasters, including, but not limited to: the debacle in Libya (inter alia the murderous attack on our facilities in Benghazi); the installation of a Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt; our arming al Qaida and Islamic State forces in Syria; turning a blind eye to the increasing Islamic supremacism of a putative NATO ally, Turkey; undermining our ally, Israel; abandoning Iraq; releasing five top Taliban commanders in exchange for a deserter, etc.”

How should the U.S. deal with Islamism?

McCarthy told WND the better approach would be “to accept that the challenge we face is Islamic supremacist ideology, which fuels both the terrorist threat and the broader Shariah-based challenge to our liberties, particularly free speech.”

“Our foreign policy should be based strictly on American interests. Foreign policy often involves having to sort out bad actors from worse actors, and any involvement with bad actors ought to be limited to what the protection of our interests requires — it is not our job to remake Islamic societies.”

He suggested, “We should resist alliances with Islamists, deal with them only to the extent our interests require it, ditch the notion that they are an asset rather than a liability in confronting violent jihadists, and — where we can do so usefully — promote pro-Western Muslims who reject Shariah supremacism.”

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton talks with her deputy chief of staff, Huma Abedin, during the Open Government Partnership event in New York September 20, 2011. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton talks with her deputy chief of staff, Huma Abedin, during the Open Government Partnership event in New York September 20, 2011. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

Lopez indirectly referred to the Obama administration’s refusal to use the words “Islamic extremists” by counseling that the U.S. should “name the enemy” as “all who fight or support jihad to impose Shariah.”

“Declare war against that enemy. Study the enemy. Know the enemy. Then deploy a whole-of-government approach to defeating that enemy utterly.”

Lopez also pointed out the existence of the presidential directive effectively making it the policy of the administration to support “moderate Islamists” was actually made public a year ago by Gulf News, a publication not widely known in the U.S.

The story detailed a wide range of Obama administration contacts and meetings with Muslim Brotherhood members, including the late U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, who was killed in a terrorist attack in Benghazi under the murkiest of circumstances.

Gulf News had reported attempts were under way to obtain State Department records documenting its dealings with the Muslim Brotherhood using a Freedom of Information, or FOIA, request.

The Washington Times reported, “Efforts to force the administration to release the directive or portions of it under the Freedom of Information Act have been unsuccessful.”

Jill Farrell, spokeswoman for the watchdog group Judicial Watch, told WND the presidential directive can not be obtained by FOIA.

“The White House itself is not subject to FOIA,” she said, “however, we have been actively making FOIA requests to the State Department and others in the federal alphabet soup that might possibly uncover communications with the White House, as we did with our Benghazi inquiry that blew the lid off with the (Deputy National Security Adviser) Ben Rhodes ‘not a failure of policy’ email.”

MG Vallely – Reining in National Insecurity

Editor’s Note – Paul E. Vallely is a retired U.S. Army major general and is chairman of Stand Up America.

Obama’s policies pose dire threat to Americans’ safety

By Paul E. Vallely – Washington Times

MG Paul E. Vallely, US Army (Ret.)
MG Paul E. Vallely, US Army (Ret.)

This Election Day, patriotic Americans must vote to rein in President Obama. Informed and objective observers can only conclude our president and his followers work hardest to weaken U.S. military superiority, to the manifest advantage of our global enemies.

Moreover, in bypassing Congress wherever possible, the current administration seized unilateral control over foreign policy and national security, flouting the original and express intent of America’s Founders.

To begin with, two specific concerns are worth noting, among many more that deserve lengthier discussion. When did the American populace endorse unilateral reduction in our nuclear arsenal, supposedly in line with comparable Russian actions? Russia is not a trustworthy partner in any respect.

President Barack Obama traveled to the Pentagon in 2012 to announce that the “tide of war is receding” for the United States, thereby justifying massive cuts to the U.S. military. “In short, we’ve succeeded in defending our nation, taking the fight to our enemies, reducing the number of Americans in harm’s way, and we’ve restored America’s global leadership. That makes us safer and it makes us stronger.”
President Barack Obama in 2012: “In short, we’ve succeeded in defending our nation, taking the fight to our enemies, reducing the number of Americans in harm’s way, and we’ve restored America’s global leadership. That makes us safer and it makes us stronger.”

Moreover, Mr. Obama’s policies support and enable the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic State, known militant and radical Islamic groups. He backed the election of Mohammed Morsi as Egypt’s new president, even as Mr. Morsi tried establishing an intolerant Islamic caliphate.

We should never forget that Mr. Morsi’s military and police attacked non-Muslims and persecuted Christians, who were beaten, raped, robbed and killed.

Meanwhile, Mr. Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said and did nothing other than support Mr. Morsi and his radical government. Luckily, destiny and understanding the “realities” of Islamic terror brought Gen. Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi and his patriots to the Egyptian people.

Do Americans in both political parties really wish to lay down their arms, cripple our military defenses and cede our sovereignty to rising nations such as Russia and China, to shadowy actors such as the Islamic State, to the United Nations or to some new global superstate?

Is the illusion of peace worth the mounting costs?

Throughout the 238-year history of the United States, our military forces experienced many transformations. Initially, the Army, Navy and Marines were patriots who organized to fight against the tyranny of England.

They banded together to win a revolution and became a force for securing the fledgling nation.

11obama_c0-34-800-500_s561x327Over ensuing decades and centuries, our military expanded, evolved, and eventually became the strongest fighting force on earth.

These changes all reflected the need and threats of the day and the political will of the government and its elected officials.

What has the Obama administration been seeking to achieve since Jan. 20, 2009? As Adm. James Lyons has stated, “With the weakest national security team since World War II, it is no wonder that both our foreign and national security policies lack coherence and direction.

The administration’s faculty-lounge logic that, in the 21st century, ‘diplomacy’ will substitute for military solutions to international crisis, overlooks or chooses to ignore a key factor: recognized military power that provides the essential underpinnings to successful diplomacy. It is called ‘peace through strength.’”

After six years, is it clear what Mr. Obama’s military objectives are anywhere on this earth? Do Americans truly believe that their national security is better protected by the Obama administration than it was before its inception?

As we approach a pivotal set of elections that affect all Americans, we who care deeply about the defense of this great nation must ask and answer a series of probing questions.

What were Mr. Obama’s intentions toward the military after taking office?

What impact has he had on the military ever since?

What will his impact be through Jan. 20, 2017, when he completes his second term in office?

A review of the president’s record and informed consideration of the current state of play suggest that America occupies a precarious position, before numerous, clear and present dangers.

To date, Mr. Obama’s actions and inactions across the globe and at home compound a long list of failures. Whether by design, malfeasance or stark ineptitude, this past is prologue for a deeply disturbing future.putin_obama

Left unchecked, Mr. Obama will degrade further America’s credibility, respect, trust and standing in the community of nations.

Thinking past Election Day, Americans should consider threats posed to this country under the president’s “leadership,” including Syria, Iran, Russia, China, our eroded relationship with linchpin Israel, the Muslim Brotherhood, North Korea, the Islamic State and al Qaeda.

Why does our president give billions of dollars in aid and supply arms to regimes that declare America and our ally Israel to be mortal enemies, worthy only of destruction?

Why would Mr. Obama work so hard to disarm American citizens while he rushes to arm our worst enemies?

Mr. Obama is relentlessly wrecking the Defense Department, downsizing and overburdening our military forces, overwhelming the U.S. economy, and speeding this country toward national suicide.

As we pause before voting, Americans need to think carefully about the risks involved letting Mr. Obama rule for two more years with little counterbalancing influence from the legislative branch.

This November your vote counts a lot more than ever before.

US Undermined Egyptian Counter-Terrorism War on MB

Editor’s Note – The author of the following article, Tera Dahl is the Executive Director of the Council on Global Security. She is also a partner with Stand Up America US and recently planned and implemented the recent trip MG Vallely and a delegation of other national security experts and journalists made to meet with senior officials in Cairo recently.

In addition to this piece, a new release came out today about the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and what candidate al-Sisi believes should happen:

Egyptian presidential favourite and former army chief Abdul Fattah al-Sisi has vowed that the ousted Muslim Brotherhood group “will not exist” should he win. In his first interview with Egyptian TV, he added that two assassination plots against him had been uncovered.

Mr Sisi removed Egypt’s first democratically elected president Mohammed Morsi from power last July. He is widely expected to win the presidential election on 26-27 May. (Read more here at the BBC.)

It is about time we in America learned what the Egyptians already know about the Muslim Brotherhood.

Please read on:

Egypt’s Counter-Terrorism War Undermined by US Insistence on Muslim Brotherhood

By Tera Dahl – Breitbart

On a recent trip to Egypt with a delegation of national security experts and journalists, we had the opportunity to meet with senior-level Egyptian security officials, as well as several members of the country’s various religious and civil society movements. The message being disseminated in the Western press about Egypt is contrary to the reality on the ground.

A recent Los Angeles Times article repeats the accusation that Egypt’s response to terrorism is in fact the reason Egypt is in such trouble. This narrative has become entrenched in some circles of the US foreign policy establishment. To quote directly from the article, “…some U.S. officials warn that the Egyptian actions may alienate civilians and spur anti-American sentiment.”egypt_morsi_obama_protest_AP

The inference is that the al-Qaeda-affiliated political movement known as the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), ousted from government, continues to be the most important “civilian” political entity in the Arab world’s most populous nation and that the MB is a legitimate political actor.

This is despite the Brotherhood being removed as a result of what may have been the largest popular democratic revolt in history, with tens of millions of anti-Brotherhood protesters flooding the streets in the summer of 2013 in rejection of the Brotherhood’s theocratic regime.

Having spent an extensive amount of time in Egypt since the removal of President Morsi last June, I can say with confidence that “anti-American sentiment” is currently at a dangerously high level, but not for the reasons many in the press cite.  The animosity stems from America’s policies of not backing the Egyptian people and their war on terrorism.

On our recent trip, members of Egypt’s civil society, that very backbone which any future democratic polity must be built on, asked us why Washington is supporting terrorism and not supporting the Egyptian people and military in their fight against terrorism. Many everyday Egyptians simply don’t understand why the U.S. cannot perceive the political reality on the ground. Egyptians are facing a counterinsurgency war in their very backyard – on Friday, an Egyptian soldier was killed by a suicide bomber in the Sinai and a policeman was killed and four more wounded by an explosion in Cairo.

In the same Los Angeles Times article, an unnamed U.S. counter-terrorism official was quoted as saying, “We fear that the Egyptian government’s heavy-handed tactics may be fueling recruitment for ABM [Ansar Bayt al Maqdis] or other extremist groups in the region.” Would it have been better for the Egyptian people to have allowed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood to stay in power and embrace the fact that they were turning Egypt into a terrorist state?

POTUS-Cairo-Speech-2009-copyOne of President Morsi’s first official acts was to release the brother of Ayman Al Zawahiri, the head of al Qaeda, from prison and put him in charge of relations with the Sinai, the very area where foreign fighters have been waging a war against the people of Egypt. This same individual was later responsible for organizing the violent protest at the American Embassy in Cairo on September 11, 2012.

There is a clear campaign in the Western media and in many Western think-tanks and policy organizations to turn the Egyptian military into the enemy and the terrorist organization of the Muslim Brotherhood into the innocent, democracy-loving victims. This narrative is deceitful and needs to be countered. The Egyptian military is America’s ally and has been since 1973, and the Muslim Brotherhood is America’s enemy. The Egyptian military is fighting against terrorism; America fights against terrorism. America and Egypt are fighting the same enemy with the same ideology that killed thousands of Americans on 9/11, thousands of Americans in Iraq, and is still killing our troops in Afghanistan today.

An institutional double-standard is evident when comparing Ukraine and Egypt. Both nations faced popular political change that aligned with the U.S.’s national interest against common foes. Congress rallied to the side of the Western-leaning Ukrainian government but continues to balk at supporting Egypt. Why?

Mohammed Morsi and his allies were turning Egypt into a failed, terrorist state. This included turning the Sinai into a safe haven for HAMAS and other militants, or as we were told in Cairo, turning the Sinai into an “Islamist Ivy League.” Morsi gave Ahmadinejad and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a red carpet welcome in Cairo and went out of his way to engage with Iran in diplomatic relations for the first time since 1979.

Morsi granted himself far-reaching powers, issuing constitutional amendments that he had no authority to assume, placing himself above any judicial oversight. Then he released hundreds of HAMAS prisoners and other terrorists, to include Zawahiri’s brother. egypt-morsi

Now, after the ouster demanded by the Egyptian people, Morsi is being prosecuted for the deaths of protesters outside of Ittihadiya palace in December 2012, where at least ten people died in clashes, as well as his escape from Wadi el-Natroun prison and his clandestine relationship while in power with HAMAS, Hezbollah, and Iran’s Revolutionary Guard.

What sense does it make to not support Egypt – and therefore push them towards Russia and risk losing our strongest ally in the Arab world and assist Russia in gaining a new strategic ally?

A message that was repeated quite often to us was that the United States’ policies (or absence thereof) are creating anarchy and instability in the region. To quote our hosts, Libya and Syria are turning into a new Afghanistan. “You left Libyans, you washed your hands of Libya,” they say. And we have.

There are reports of training camps in Libya run by the “Free Egyptian Army” seeking to wage war against the Egyptian security forces. The Egyptian military may have no other choice but to use military force in Libya to control their borders and protect their country. President Obama’s war in Libya has created an Al Qaeda safe haven which will have dire consequences for the region and also the United States.

The United States can no longer turn a blind eye to the chaos and anarchy in Libya. Militants are killing Libyan security forces and civilians every day in Libya, and instead of the Obama Administration taking any action to clean up the mess they created, they have instead embraced the Muslim Brotherhood, the terrorists, in Libya.”

Morsi worked to change the identity of Egypt into an intolerant, theocratic state, not unlike Iran. The Egyptian people knew that in order to save their country, they had to do something and could not wait three more years for elections that had already been dominated by a political movement with no respect for democracy. With no impeachment mechanism in the Brotherhood-written constitution, they had no way to politically remove Morsi. So they started a petition calling for early elections. The petition received 22 million signatures, whereas Morsi was only elected by 13.2 million people.

Following the petition, Egyptians held the biggest political protest in history on June 30th, when 33 million people went to the streets calling for early elections. Egyptians risked their lives to go out in the street to save the future of their country, much as Ukrainians are now doing in Eastern Ukraine. In Egypt the military intervened against a theocratic dictator and in favor of Egyptians who put Egypt first.

The United States has been consistently pressuring Egypt to be “all inclusive” with members of the Brotherhood. Why should any nation strive to be inclusive of a movement that believes in destroying all opposition and diversity? The Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology is treasonous to any country where it exists. The motto of the Muslim Brotherhood is “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope”.

We need to take them at their own word, as delivered by the Muslim Brotherhood’s Supreme Guide, Mohammad Badi:

Arab and Muslim regimes betray their people unless they confront not only Israel but also the US. Waging jihad against both is mandatory for all Muslims. Otherwise, “They are disregarding Allah’s commandment to wage jihad…”

All Muslims are required by their religion to fight as their highest priority, since “the improvement and change that the [Muslim] nation seeks can only be attained through jihad and sacrifice, and by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death just as its enemies pursue life.”

The only solution for the Muslim Brotherhood is a complete dismantling of the organization. Period. Instead America has adopted a policy of apology and appeasement, placating the terrorists, seeing them as the victims. This is all based on the altogether false narrative that the Brotherhood is a democratic and peaceful organization.

America has been on a trajectory of alienating our allies and emboldening our enemies while at the same time weakening our military. This is a very dangerous path, and our lack of attention to the reality in the Middle East is not going to serve us well in the future.