Can a President Who Has Promised to ‘Stand with the Muslims’ Protect Americans?

American Thinker

In  Obama’s Audacity of Hope, he stated, “I will stand with the Muslims  should the political winds shift in any ugly direction.”  He also asserted  in Bob Woodward’s Obama’s Wars, “We can absorb [another] terrorist  attack.”  These are two straightforward statements that raise the question  of whether a man who has been seemingly obsessed with reaching out to “the  Muslim world” since taking office is capable of fulfilling his duty as  commander-in-chief to keep America safe and secure.

The  negative implications of Obama’s time in office will be felt for decades, but  one thing is clear. The U.S. President who does not recognize America’s  exceptionalism and who has promised to stand with Muslims has been unable to  keep Americans safe from Islamic terror — both at home and abroad.   Asserting that “The Obama Years are Synonymous with Terrorism,” a recent  IBD editorial  chronicled the terrorist attacks, both failed and successful, during Obama’s  term.  From Little Rock and Ft. Hood to Benghazi and Boston, terrorism  directed at Americans is far from waning despite Obama’s never-ending claims  of al-Qaeda’s decimation.  And unless Obama’s policies of appeasement,  political correctness, government dependency, leading from behind, and willful  ignorance regarding the Islamic threat to the West will lead to further  terrorism.

Obama  did not create the Islamist ideology that has fed the fervor of modern-day  terrorism.  But from his Cairo speech through his speech Monday night just  after the Boston bombings, in which he refused to call the attacks terrorism (he  conceded the point the following day), he has made it clear that he does not  believe that terrorism is a continuing threat to the lives and safety of  Americans.  His refusal to use the terms “War on Terror” and “Islamic  fundamentalism” are just examples of a belief either that he can wish away evil  or that evil simply does not exist.  But what the country needs is a  president who understands Islamic jihad for what it is — the totalitarian,  fundamentalist dogma that drives the violence perpetrated by those who have  waged holy war on the West.  And Obama has yet to give us any indication  that he understands these very real threats, or that he is interested in, and  capable of, protecting us from them.

Based  on the fact that, in response to information provided by a foreign government  (presumably Russia), the FBI questioned one of the Boston terrorists two years  ago and a 2009  domestic violence arrest that should have led to his deportation but did  not, Tuesday morning quarterbacks are focusing on Obama’s questionable  immigration policies, including administrative amnesty that  “apparently directs ICE to wait until an illegal alien commits a serious crime  or two before considering deportation.”i  And while most people  think of Hispanics crossing our southern border illegally, few realize that  Hezb’allah has operatives working throughout Latin America.  Unfortunately,  securing our borders for national security purposes is taking a back-seat to Obama’s  politicking and demonization of the GOP as anti-immigrant.

Alas,  would that it were simply Obama’s indifference to our immigration  problem that led to the successful terrorist attack last week.   Unfortunately, Obama seems driven by a desire to befriend Muslims and  demonize those who recognize that, while not all Muslims are terrorists, most  terrorists are Muslimsii and that radical Islam is a clear, present,  and dangerous threat.  Martha Raddatz observed,  “The president has been so worried about offending non-jihadist Muslims that  he’s tried to take the ideology out of our enemy, which is nuts considering our  enemy is the violent ideology.”

The  administration’s assertions  that the Muslim Brotherhood is moderate epitomize the administration’s  cluelessness.  Notwithstanding the MB doctrine — “Allah is our objective.  The Prophet is our leader. The Koran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the  way of Allah is our highest hope.” — the administration’s assertions of  secularism and moderation rather than Islamism and sharia domination are  indicative of willful ignorance on the part of those formulating foreign policy.   As Barry Rubin stated:

[T]he  ability to critique precisely what is radical in Islam and what is wrong with  Islamism is handicapped by the successful effort to brand any attempts at making  such distinctions as “Islamophobia” instead of a sensible fear of revolutionary  Islamism[.]

But  is it really ignorance, or is there a dangerous ideology that drives Obama  policy in this regard?  In an in-depth essay on the MB’s penetration of the  government,” Clare Lopez observed:

Under  the Muslim Brotherhood-influenced Obama administration, U.S. policy has  undergone such a drastic shift in the direction of outright support for these  jihadist movements — from al-Qa’eda militias in Libya, to the Muslim  Brotherhood in Egypt, and both al-Qa’eda and Muslim Brotherhood-linked rebels in  Syria — that it is scarcely recognizable as American any  more.

This  mentality likely led to Obama’s Justice Department dropping  the charges against unindicted co-conspirators CAIR, ISNA, and other Muslim  Brotherhood-affiliated organizations in the Holy Land Foundation terror-funding  trial.  It also helped bring the MB to power in Egypt as Obama threw  Mubarak under the proverbial bus despite a decades-long history of a peaceful  alliance among Egypt, America, and Israel.  And with numerous MB operatives working  with or in the administration, it is no wonder that an Egyptian cleric recently stated, “Trust  me, very soon we will see the flag of ‘There is no god but Allah’ flying over  the White House. They are already holding [Muslim] prayers in the White  House.”

This  worldview coupled with the need to ensure some elitists’ perceived politically  correct discourse is leading to troubling policy decisions.  Succumbing to  pressure by MB-affiliated organizations, the FBI was forced  to rewrite counter-terrorism training  manuals instructing agents on the religion of Islam.  Allen West responded  to the fiasco, stating, “We have to understand when tolerance becomes a one-way  street, it will lead to cultural suicide[.] … [W]e should not allow the Muslim  Brotherhood-associated groups to be influencing our national security  strategy.”

One  has to wonder whether this played a role in the FBI’s failure to discover the Boston terrorists and stop them before they  killed.  Rep. Pete King stated  on Fox News Sunday:

[T]his  is the latest in a series of cases like this. Anwar Awlaki, Major Hasan, Carlos  Bledsoe, Robert Headley [sic], and now, this case with the older brother, where  the FBI is given information about someone as being potential terrorists, they  look at them, and then they don’t take action. And they go out and carry out  murders after this.    So, again, I’m wondering, again, is there  something deficient here? What was wrong?

Whether  due to efforts to be politically correct or efforts to hide reality from the  public, Obama’s refusal to call terrorism what it is is distressing — and  dangerous.  Major Hasan’s terrorist attack at Ft. Hood is labeled  “workplace violence” despite clear evidence (including screams of “Allahu  Akbar”) to the contrary.  And a filmmaker accused by the administration of  producing a video that led to the Benghazi attacks remains in jail while our new  secretary of state echoes Hillary “what difference does it make” Clinton and pronounces,  “We got a lot more important things to move on to[.]”  This willful  ignorance will lead Kerry, along with Obama’s other similarly incompetent  appointees, to serve as indirect and unintentional co-conspirators in future terrorist attacks on Americans.

The  administration’s refusal to discuss what motivated last week’s terrorist attack  (recall that David Axelrod surmised  that Obama was thinking that it was due to “Tax Day”) is leading to left-wing  apologists and our  enemies blaming America.  Until Obama admits that Islamism is a failed  ideology and proudly asserts the wisdom of Americanism, how can we expect to end  the growing appeal of violence among the Islamic faithful?

In  a speech after the Boston attack, Obama referred  to himself as “Reverend Obama.”  If only he would take on that role in the  context of preaching to the Muslim world what a privilege it is to live in our  great country.  But it is this refusal to recognize the evils of Islamic  fundamentalism that have neutered the administration’s ability to confront the  problem.  And while the administration declares  that the War on Terror is over and Janet Napolitano declares  that the Boston attacks were not part of a “broader plot,” the terrorists’ War  on America and its values rages on (a recent  story explains that the only reason the terrorists did not kill the  carjacking victim was because he was not an American).  Andrew McCarthy explained:

Islamic  supremacism is a mainstream Islamic ideology – held by tens of millions of  Muslims, not just a few thousand al Qaeda members and collaborators. Thus, if  the administration were to admit that this ideology and agenda catalyze  terrorism, they would logically have to admit the problem is much bigger than al  Qaeda.

…  This leads the administration to the absurd conclusions that…a mass-murder  attack committed by Muslims, no matter how obviously it is terrorism, should not  be acknowledged as terrorism unless it has been committed by either a member of  al Qaeda or a group that can be portrayed as “inspired” by al Qaeda (meaning,  inspired by “violent extremism,” not by Islam).

And  Stephen Hayes observed:

This  is not, of course, the first time we’ve seen an apparent eagerness from the  Obama administration to minimize or dismiss the possibility of broader ties to  international terrorism after attacks or attempted attacks on U.S. interests.  Three days after the attempted bombing of an airplane on Christmas Day 2009,  President Obama suggested that the attempted attack was the work of “an isolated  extremist.” He made the claim despite the fact that the bomber, Umar Farouk  Abdulmutallab, told interrogators in interviews shortly after his capture that  he’d worked with al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Five months later, Homeland  Security Secretary Janet Napolitano called the attempted bombing of Times Square  by Faisal Shahzad a “one off” attack. Other administration officials downplayed  the likelihood of ties to foreign jihadists.

In  the coming days and weeks, we will learn more about the influences that led to  the radicalization of the Boston terrorists.  What we do know is that the  imam from the mosque that the terrorists attended is affiliated  with a MB front-group and that he sermonized about violence.   And while the NYPD  was vilified for recognizing that there is an incitement problem in  America’s mosques, the federal government should mirror those anti-terror  surveillance programs but likely will not.iii

Exacerbating  the problem is Obama’s domestic spending sickness that is leaving our military  capability in shambles and our homeland security seriously wanting.  In an  article discussing the military’s “State of Unreadiness” in the context of an  attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, Col J.E. Dyer observed:

Even  during the penurious Carter years, things weren’t this bad. It really isn’t  possible to overstate the seriousness of it…

Burned  readiness for the Air Force and Navy — the services that would execute a strike  on the Iranian nuclear program — means forces that can’t be called on when they  are needed. Think of “burning readiness” as driving until your gas is gone  without a means of refilling the tank. That’s what America is doing right now  with our armed forces.

While  many may argue that the cuts to the military budget are due to partisan  congressional dysfunction, it is important to note that the sequester was the  brilliant idea of our current commander-in-chief.  Furthermore, it was  recently reported  that the administration cut the budget for domestic bomb prevention by 45%.   This is the portion of the DHS budget that is allocated to prevent the  exact type of terrorist attack that occurred in Boston last week.  And over  the past several years, programs  that provided millions to schools for training, security, police, and mass  tragedies were terminated.

Obama  entered office promising to close Gitmo, treating the war on terror as an  everyday criminal matter (despite the urging  of lawmakers, the administration will not designate  the Boston terrorist as an enemy combatantiv), and outlawing enhanced  interrogation that leads to life-saving intelligence. While Obama is largely  praised for drone attacks that have killed al-Qaeda terrorists, the inevitable  result is a dearth of leads that could prevent future attacks.  The  premature pullout from Iraq and Afghanistan and resulting void in American  influence and strength are resulting in newly emboldened Taliban, al-Qaeda, and  Islamic jihadists across the entire region.  Leading from behind has  resulted in the weaponization of Islamists.  And the administration has  granted Global  Entry Status to Saudi Arabian citizens (before those from Great Britain,  France, and Israel) and now permits knives,  baseball bats, and other potential weapons on airplanes.

Many  analysts are now questioning whether the atrocity that befell the citizens of  Boston will become the “new normal.”  It is clear that future attacks are  inevitable as long as our government and the president in particular do not call  a spade a spade and begin to take all necessary measures to protect American  citizens from the evil deeds of Islamists.

Now  is not a time to “stand with Muslims.” It is a time to call for Muslims to leave  behind centuries of violence and join the civilized race of the 21st  century.  And if they do not, they should know that we will fight the War  on Terror until the evil is destroyed.


iMore  recently, a group of ICE agents sued the administration, claiming that it is  dictating how immigration laws are or are not enforced.  Quoting Jessica  Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies,  Andrew Stiles reported  that the administration appears “to be giving a lot of fee passes to people who  are a public-safety problem, beyond the fact that they are here  illegally.”

iiAccording  to The Religion of Peace website, there have been over 20,000 lethal Muslim  terrorist attacks since, 9/11 with approximately 1,800 occurring annually, about  150 per month, and 5 each day.

iii A Wall Street Journal editorial  reports that due, in part, to bureaucratic competition, FBI officials were major  sources for the AP stories on the NYPD program.  They also “wish the NYPD  had been in charge” in the case of the Boston attack.

iv The importance in naming Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and others as enemy combatants  cannot be stressed enough.  This designation would permit extensive  interrogation that could possibly lead to information that could prevent future  attacks and vital intelligence on terror cells, weapons training, and related  matters.  Treating terrorists as common criminals shuts the door to  obtaining critical intelligence much like a drone strike terminates any ability  to learn from the subject.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/04/can_a_president_who_has_promised_to_stand_with_the_muslims_protect_americans.html#ixzz2RHQKwP4U Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

6 responses to “Can a President Who Has Promised to ‘Stand with the Muslims’ Protect Americans?

  1. Angry Patriot

    Obama has NO interest in protecting Americans.
    To believe otherwise is extremely naive.

  2. I may have missed it but, I think you are the FIRST person to have this subject matter listed on a blog.
    And, the answer is short and BITTER! NO, HE CANNOT!!

  3. I AM GLAD YOU ASKED IT….what is sad is that NO ONE ELSE HAS!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s