The Battle Within Islam and President Obama

 "Many American Muslims don't think CAIR represents them, and that the CAIR approach further alienates and divides Americans of all faiths. These are the "silent majority" among American Muslims."

Colonel (Ret.) Derek Harvey

"President Obama needs to accept that our current conflict is as much against the idea of radical jihadism as it is against the physical presence of ISIS. Furthermore, by failing to define the religious-political ideology underpinning the enemy, the president contributes to an environment where all Muslims are increasingly looked at with suspicion. And when President Obama says that we are not at war with Islam, he is implicitly acknowledging to the public that Islam does have something to with extremism, disorder, and violence.

"President Obama has also inadvertently cast a blanket of suspicion on the Muslim community through his rhetoric and framing of the challenge. Wouldn't it be better if instead the president and the Administration defined the real enemy – a narrow band of radical extremists? . . . 

"Many Muslim reformers in this country would like the Obama Administration's support in their efforts to frame the problem for what it is – radical Sunni extremism - so that they can face the issue of tolerance and reform within the faith. " . . .

Colonel (Ret.) Derek Harvey is a Middle East specialist, Islamic scholar, and terrorism expert. He served as an advisor to multiple U.S. Commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Stephen F. Hayes: GOP Debaters Left Obama's Awful Record on National Security Largely Untouched

Podcast here; This podcast can be downloaded here.

It's Time For The Other 13 Candidates To Drop Out

Tunnel Dweller does not endorse Ms. Coulter's main point here, but does agree that we must all come to terms with her logic expressed herein.

Ann Coulter

. . . "After the San Bernardino terrorist attack, committed by Muslim immigrants -- which followed the 1993 World Trade Center terrorist attack committed by Muslim immigrants; the 9/11 terrorist attacks committed by Muslim immigrants; the Fort Hood terrorist attack committed by a Muslim immigrant; the Boston Marathon terrorist attack committed by Muslim immigrants, and on and on -- Trump suggested a temporary pause on Muslim immigration. 

"The other candidates responded by attacking him viciously. Now, the eunuchs are duking it out over who has the most aggressive approach to ... fighting ISIS! 

"Asked why he called Trump's proposal "unhinged," Jeb! explained: "Well, first of all, we need to destroy ISIS in the caliphate."

"Marco Rubio said: "The problem is we had an attack in San Bernardino," adding that "what's important to do is we must deal frontally with this threat of radical Islamists, especially from ISIS." . . . 

Comments on the Dec 15th GOP Debate

From Bookworm Room  . . . "The article boils the foreign policy issue (which the Constitution gives to the president) down to two world views: The Wilson world view is that we have to intervene all over the world to make it a better place, and that it’s shameful to win wars; instead we have to make peace.  The Jackson view is that we shouldn’t fight a war that doesn’t directly benefit us, but when we fight, we fight to win. Wilsonians would say a safer world indirectly benefits us, making intervention wars worthwhile. Jacksonians would say that too many of our wars have not only failed to give us any benefit, they’ve been very bad for us, especially because — as Obama exemplifies — we shouldn’t win." . . .

Lucianne is an excellent source for material such as these:

GOP December 2015 Debate: Another View  "The debate was much stronger for everyone -- except perhaps for Trump.
"The CNN moderators did not become the story, so that’s positive.
"The main story line is that they attacked each other appropriately, I believe, but they always brought the discussion back to Obama-Hillary. This circle back to the Dems was smart, very smart." . . .

Tuesday’s GOP debate was Jeb Bush’s last stand, and he failed   . . . "At this point then, barring an even unlikelier miracle in next month’s GOP debate, the last before the Iowa caucuses, Bush has no way of turning around his fortunes. Sure, one would think Bush could use his money advantage to move his numbers by flooding Iowa and New Hampshire airwaves with ads. But his campaign has already tried that, “racing through its massive war chest” with nothing to show for it." . . .

Consider the source on this: CNN: Was Marco Rubio Overrated All Along?  . . . "That was a rough debate for Marco Rubio. He finally got that long-awaited challenge on his previous support for the “Gang of Eight” immigration-law overhaul, which he handled well enough. But any way you look at it, this puts him to the left of the field on the major animating issue of the campaign. He continually took fire from a surging Ted Cruz and a feisty Rand Paul. He spent much of the night on the defensive." . . .

The Daily 202: Anger won and Rubio lost last night’s debate   “ 'Like all of you, I’m angry” is how Carly Fiorina began her opening statement. That sentence encapsulates not just last night’s two-hour debate in Las Vegas but also the entire Republican nominating contest thus far. Donald Trump himself was largely a non-factor in the candidates’ fifth and final showdown of 2015, but Trumpism was the dominant, animating force inside the Venetian Theatre." . . .

Fifth Debate Quietly Winnows The Field

. . . "Not surprisingly, Trump arguably made the biggest news of the night: Finally shutting down speculation that he might run as a third-party candidate should he not win the nomination in Cleveland, a rogue step that would basically doom Republican White House hopes." . . .

In Las Vegas Debate, a Rubio-Cruz Showdown Takes Center Stage   . . . "Tuesday may have foreshadowed a Rubio-Cruz battle for the nomination that more and more Republicans are now predicting, as Cruz continues to consolidate the support of conservative voters and Rubio emerges as the favorite of center-right, establishment-oriented voters. " . . .

A Serious Debate for a Country at a Moment of Serious Crisis   "First, as lengthy as tonight’s debate on CNN was, about two-thirds of the nine GOP candidates on stage turned in solid performances and demonstrated real knowledge and critical analysis of serious crises: how to monitor potential terrorist communications, how to handle Syrian refugees, what to do about Syria’s bloody civil war, when the U.S. should stand with dictators, how to handle Putin, and so on." . . .

The threat grew worse in part because the Obama administration didn’t want to see the threat, didn’t want to acknowledge the threat was growing, didn’t want to admit its policies weren’t working, and didn’t want to break its politically-correct worldview. 

Administration nixed probe into Southern California jihadists

http://terrellaftermath.com/

The Hill  . . . "In retaliation, DHS and the Department of Justice subjected me to a series of investigations and adverse actions, including one by that same Inspector General. None of them showed any wrongdoing; they seemed aimed at stopping me from blowing the whistle on this problem. Earlier this year, I was finally able to honorably retire from government and I’m now taking my story to the American people as a warning.

"My law enforcement colleagues and I must conduct our work while respecting the rights of those we monitor.  But what I witnessed suggests the Obama administration is more concerned with the rights of non-citizens in known Islamist groups than with the safety and security of the American people.

"That must change. "

By Philip Haney, a recently retired DHS employee. As can be said about the military officers in the later post.

U.S. has mapped ISIS hiding spots, but won’t launch strikes for fear of civilian deaths
. . . "Most of the locations are embedded in heavily residential areas in Syria, Iraq and Libya and are not being targeted by U.S. airstrikes because of Obama administration concerns about civilian casualties, according to sources who spoke to The Washington Times only on the condition of anonymity." . . .

Gleeful ISIS Gloats About Los Angeles Bomb Scare

Within minutes of the news of the bomb scare in LA, ISIS supporters created a web forum titled “Panic in the American Los Angeles.”

Vocativ  . . . “Thanks God, they are panicked of everything. The soldiers of the Caliphate will look after you until the world will be under the rule of Allah,” wrote one supporter. Another responded with, “Oh God, never make them safe. Put panic in their hearts.”

"Another ISIS supporter took to Twitter to comment on the school closings in Los Angeles. “The city of Los Angeles is closing schools and vital areas because of the security threat. Oh God, destroy the worshipers of the cross,” the tweet, written by someone who identifies himself as Ali al-Baghdadi, reads. On another ISIS-friendly Twitter feed that is regarded as an unofficial arm of the ISIS propaganda machine, an ISIS supporter celebrated the fact that nearly 650,000 kids were sent home from school.

“ 'Allah Akbar, closure of all the school in Los Angeles because of threats,” the tweet reads. “640,000 returned to their homes, Oh God, increase their panic!!”

"Law enforcement officials have not said whether the bomb threats in Los Angeles are in any way associated with ISIS or other terror groups." . . .

comicallyincorrect.com

Report: Obama Told Cabinet Heads To “Downplay” Terror Angle After San Bernardino

Nice Deb

The Commander in Chief’s mission at this time of national crisis? Getting his top lieutenants to unite behind a PR strategy to “downplay the terror angle” —  because a terrorist attack on the home front does nothing to advance the Commander in Chief’s agenda.. . . 

" . . . Obama put “immense political pressure” on investigators to avoid using the term “terrorism.”

"Attorney General Loretta Lynch went above and beyond the call of duty when she not only downplayed the terror-angle, but noted that an anti-Muslim backlash was her “greatest fear.” She also made it clear that the Department of Justice was prepared to prosecute people engaging in “anti-Muslim” rhetoric.

. . . "For his own part, Obama stated, “It is possible that this is terrorist related, but we don’t know…It is also possible that this was workplace related.”

. . . "The FBI and local law enforcement were tight-lipped at first, but self respect soon trumped fear of crossing the White House, so the truth came out."

The blogger concludes with these words:

"2016 2017 (!) can not get here quick enough."

 

 

Opening Combat To Females

Blackfive  Entire article posted here:

 "Let me start by saying I don't care about wrappers, or who does what to whom how or when (so long as there is consent).  By wrapper, I mean the outward manifestation that is the amazing human body.  What matters to me is if a person can and does do the job, be it serving in the military or any other occupation, and if they are what I consider a good person.  Yes, that order is deliberate, as I know some people that are great at what they do, but frankly are a------s outside of that.  So long as they don't move beyond being "Do-Che's" as Uncle Jimbo has called it, I would use them for their proven abilities and expertise at need. Being able to do the job is what counts.  Right now, our all-volunteer force is -- in my opinion -- the finest fighting force ever to exist.  It is such because of a combination of training, professionalism, and high standards for any number of specialties, from combat to nuclear engineering/technical operations. That said, there are a lot of people of progressive bent that would like to see that force be eliminated, or otherwise degraded.  Those points being given, the Secretary of Defense has ordered -- over some valid objections -- all military occupation specialties to females.  So, I have one basic question for SecDef Carter:  How does this improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the U.S. Armed Forces?After all, that is the bottom line, is it not?  That one question does raise a host of sub-questions for me. While the order states open to those who meet the current standards, how long before the standards are changed to ensure diversity?  After all, many of those current standards are difficult for females (and a large number of males) to meet.  They were set high for a number of reasons, the majority of which come from experience in what is required to physically and mentally meet the demands of that specialty.  If they are to be changed, what will be the driver for that change, reality or social engineering?  The order also appears to come with a dearth of planning for how to implement this effectively, which often means a number of preventable problems.  My question here is if that is considered a bug or a feature?  Will the problems be used to create real solutions designed to improve the situation, and the effectiveness and efficiency of our forces to do their job of bringing death and destruction to our enemies, or will it be used to enact further changes to appease the Social Justice Warrior crowd?  While I agree with Jonn that many years of study were ignored or wasted, was any review or consideration given to examining the operations of countries that have already allowed females to serve in a variety of combat specialties?  While Israel is not alone in this, most have not allowed females into ALL specialties for a variety of reasons.  If these were not examined or considered in deciding to open to all, why not? To reiterate for the regular trolls and other idiots:  I don't care about the wrapper.  I care about competence.  I would love to have detailed answers from the SecDef to my questions, but estimate the chances of that are on par with my winning both the PowerBall and MegaMillion lotteries this week. Now, what are your thoughts on this? " 

 Endquote

The biggest Pinocchios of 2015

Glenn Kessler

"It’s time for our annual round-up of the biggest Pinocchios of the year.

"The 2016 presidential campaign has dominated our coverage of false claims. In particular, businessman Donald Trump — who has soared to the top of the GOP field — kept us busy. In the space of just six months, he earned 11 Four-Pinocchio ratings, far more than any other candidate.

"Most politicians drop a claim after it has been fact-checked as false. But Trump is unusual in that he always insists he is right, no matter how little evidence he has for his claim. Frankly, it’s really not interesting to fact check The Donald, as his assertions are so easily debunked. Still, he scores a hat trick on this list." . . .

Democrat military: Pressure Grows for Marines to Lower Standards for Women

27 Female Marines Have Attempted the Infantry Officers Training Course. None Have Passed.

Washington Free Beacon  "When it was reported at the beginning of October that three female Marine officers had passed the Combat Endurance Test (CET), the initial entry screener for the Corp’s challenging Infantry Officer Course, the news was widely reported. You can read about it here, here, here, here, here, and here.

"The story was indeed news. Up to that point, of the 24 women who had attempted the CET, only one had passed, and she had reportedly later been dropped from the overall course due to an injury. Struggling to get enough female officers into the course to produce a statistically significant result for its study of introducing women into combat roles, the Corps had directed that more seasoned female officers could attempt the course. Now three had made it over the first hurdle.

"When all three were cut from the course last week for not meeting physical standards in subsequent training events, the news was not as widely reported. I have only found it here in the Christian Science Monitor, which, to its credit, has closely covered this issue from start:

When they begin the 13-week IOC, officers are told that if they “fall out” of more than one “tactical movement” during their time in training, they will be asked to leave the school.

“That has always been IOC policy,” Major Flynn says.“The key part is not just to conduct a movement. You need to lead that moment, and you can’t do that if you’re falling out.”. . . 

 
. . .  "Among female Marine officers, including those who support the introduction of women into combat arms, and those who are personally ambitious to try the infantry for themselves, I have never heard anyone assert that they would like standards lowered for them, so that they can pass the course. Why would they? It would entirely undercut the value of their achievement, and diminish the overall fighting capacity of the Marine Corps. These officers are Marines first and individuals second. They want to succeed on fair terms."

Photos added by the Tunnel Dweller

On the Paris Global Warming Conference

http://terrellaftermath.com/

File this under "you knew this was coming, Didn't you?" Lettuce is ‘three times worse than bacon' for emissions and vegetarian diets could be bad for environment

"Eating a healthier diet rich in fruit and vegetables could actually be more harmful to the environment than consuming some meat, a US study has claimed.

"Lettuce is “over three times worse in greenhouse gas emissions than eating bacon”, according to researchers from the Carnegie Mellon University who analysed the impact per calorie of different foods in terms of energy cost, water use and emissions."

COP21: President Obama celebrates Paris deal that 'transformed the US'
. . . "The deal, which Mr Obama called a “turning point”, promises to become a major part of the president’s legacy. However, Republicans in Washington were already warning that it could be torn up if any of their candidates wins back the White House in 2016." . . .

THE MASSIVE CLIMATE CHANGE AGREEMENT GIVE-AWAY  "On a superficial level, the agreement, which is to take effect in 2020, appears ambitious in terms of the goals it sets and its universal participation. In reality, however, what emerged from Paris was the folly of a massive give-away to bribe the so-called developing nations to participate."

http://earloftaint.com/

NRO: No to the Paris Accord  . . . "The accord reached in Paris fails in three key ways: It cannot satisfy an elementary cost-benefit analysis; it does not serve the national interests of the United States; and the Obama administration is seeking to bind the United States to a treaty while insisting that it is not a treaty and thereby shutting Congress out of its proper role in ratifying such accords. For these reasons, the Paris agreement should be considered dead on arrival, and Congress should make it clear that the United States will not consider itself legally bound by it for the simple reason that it has not been legally adopted.""

An Accord About Nothing

Countries will also be legally required to reconvene every five years starting in 2023 to publicly report on how they are doing in cutting emissions compared to their plans. They will be legally required to monitor and report on their emissions levels and reductions, using a universal accounting system.

Plain old peer pressure. 

Leaders Fight Phony Climate Enemy — Solving Real Problems is Just Too Hard   . . . "It's an arrangement in which they can meet in comfort, pretend to be putting in hard work, pat themselves on the back for a job well done and then read the fawning media's coverage of their efforts.

"Meanwhile, real-world problems go unaddressed."

The Economic Consequences of COP21   . . . "The technique Obama used to accomplish a government takeover of the health-care system should have been warming enough: it wasn't. First, identify and rail against a "crisis." In the case of health care it was the millions of Americans without health insurance, but in the case of low-income families not without health care, which they could obtain in hospital emergency rooms. In the case of energy, the crisis is climate change. Second, dismiss and vilify critics. Those who would deny the poor access to adequate medical care are hard-hearted, those who are not certain that the climate is indeed changing, that if it is changing the use of fossil fuels is the cause, and those who refuse to accept that "the science is settled" are anti-science at best, engaged in "calculated destruction" according to Kerry, climate change deniers at worst, right up there on the list of villains with Holocaust deniers. Third, invent studies that prove that the crisis can be eliminated by government measures that are better than costless – they actually accelerate economic growth, improve living standards, create jobs." . . .

Remember it was once "settled science" that the earth was flat.

comicallyincorrect.com

French Kicking Down Doors, Closing Mosques, Finding A LOT of ‘War-Grade’ Weapons

NEWSBALANCE

"While President Obama responds to the most deadly terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11 by urging Americans to “reject discrimination” and embrace gun control, French authorities are actually taking the real and present danger of radical Islamic terrorism seriously. Over the last few days, they kicked down doors, closed three mosques (with plans to close potentially more than a hundred), and in the process found an alarming number of weapons, ammo, and terrorist propaganda. 

"Where are all those peaceful Muslims.  If they aren’t peaceful in their house of worship, then what?   RJM"

"France is not alone in ramping up its anti-terror campaign; several European countries, including Germany, are beginning to take more aggressive action against potential Muslim extremists. German authorities this week sounded the alarm about extremists' attempts to radicalize Middle Eastern migrants. "Officials said they have encountered at least 100 cases in which extremists have tried to establish contact with refugees," reports Express."

Kalashnikov ammunition and Isis propaganda seized after Paris mosque closure

Claim: President Obama told an audience in Europe ordinary Americans are "too small-minded to govern their own affairs" and should "surrender their rights" to an "all-powerful sovereign."

Snopes  . . . "Commenting on world order, did Obama actually tell a German audience that "ordinary men and women are too small minded to govern their own affairs, and that order and progress can only come when individuals surrender their right to an all powerful sovereign"? Perhaps, if he spoke this it was taken out of context?" . . .

. . . "No audio clues immediately challenge the clip's veracity. One major red flag, however, is a cutaway: between the first and second portions of the short statement, the camera panned out over the audience before centering back on Obama's face. " . . .

. . . "Considered in their full context, President Obama's mentions to ordinary men and women being "too small-minded to govern their own affairs" and order and progress being possible only "when individuals surrender their rights to an all-powerful sovereign" are clearly references to an old, undesirable form of power, not an expression of President Obama's viewpoint about how things are or should be in the world. "

Politifact says it was edited to change his meaning
We conservatives must leave tricks like this to NBC and the rest of the liberal media. 

Full transcript of this speech

More research on this here. Not all of it classy.