ОТ АПАТИИ К НЕВОЛЕ

БОРИС ГУЛЬКО 

От апатии к неволе.

 В рассказе Михаила Зощенко многочисленные жильцы ленинградской коммуналки вели вполне себе удовлетворительную жизнь, пока не провели электричество. Днём на работе, по делам. Вечером вернулись, включили свет… Свинство непереносимое. Пришлось электричество отключить.

Резня в гейском клубе в Орландо, устроенная   Омаром Матином, стала таким моментальным включением света. И реакция на неё американцев, их прессы и выбранных лидеров, была как в помянутом рассказе – выключить свет!

Об Омаре Матине известно: он был геем (его прошлая жена сообщила это, а нынешняя – трогательная деталь, иногда подвозила Матина к гейскому клубу), зарегистрированным демократом, мусульманином, резню устроил во имя торжества ИГ: «Я совершил это для Исламского Государства. Я хочу, чтобы Америка прекратила бомбить мою страну», заявил он, позвонив в полицию. Гейский клуб был избран им для теракта, вероятно, поскольку он хорошо знал эту цель. Террорист в Сан-Бернандино тоже убивал там, где до того работал. Имело значение, наверняка, и то, что запрещённый исламом гомосексуализм стал неким символом либеральных свобод Запада.

Анализ причин резни геев в Орландо предложил нации Обама. Он обвинил в случившемся саму Америку, призвав её к самоанализу. Американцы должны «найти силы и смелость поменяться», – заявил он. При этом, заметила Хитер Вильхельм в статье для RCP, Обама не обещал поменять что-то в работе ФБР, которое дважды допрашивало Матина, знало об опасности, им представляемой, и даже предупредило Дисней Уорлд об этой опасности. «Этих одиноких игроков или небольшие ячейки очень трудно обнаружить, и их атаки очень трудно предотвратить», пожаловался Обама. Особенно, если не пытаться.

Конечно, корнем зла Обама объявил доступность оружия и призывал запретить многие виды его, как будто в Париже и в Брюсселе такие запреты предотвратили недавние атаки, и могли предотвратить взрыв на бостонском марафоне. Очевидно, президент пытается отвлечь нацию от реальной причины резни в Орландо – от агрессии против Запада радикального ислама.

В реальной жизни оружие в руках граждан является защитой против исламского терроризма. Единственная провалившаяся атака исламистов на территории США – у здания, в котором наша героиня Памела Геллер проводила конкурс карикатур на ислам, была сорвана, когда некто застрелил двух террористов в бронежилетах и с карабинами. По официальной версии, это был пожилой дорожный полицейский с табельным пистолетом. Последняя волна «ножевого терроризма» захлебнулась в Израиле, когда правительство призвало евреев, владеющих оружием, постоянно носить его с собой. В религиозном поселении Долев в наделе Биньямина, в котором живёт моя сестра, по постановлению раввинов мужчины носят с собой пистолеты даже в шаббат. И за четверть века в поселении не случилось ни одного теракта.

Так что же, Обама, борясь против оружия в руках граждан, печётся о безопасности исламистов больше, чем об интересах прочих американцев, и прав Тодд Старнс, заявивший на FOXnews, что «Обама больше апологет ислама, чем президент»? Доводы к такому заключению приводит Каролин Глик в статье для JP от 16 июня. В ней она напоминает, что в Египте американский президент использовал всё дипломатическое и экономическое влияние своей страны для установления там власти террористического «Мусульманского Братства», а на нынешнего президента Сиси, свергнувшего исламистов и призвавшего имамов реформировать ислам, а также налаживающего сотрудничество с Израилем, наложил санкции и отказал в поставках оружия. Также Обама снял санкции с крупнейшего спонсора исламского терроризма Ирана, и открыл тому дорогу к атомной бомбе. Исламистам доверены важные посты в разных отделах администрации США включая разведку. Глик могла бы припомнить также, что Обама освободил под надуманными предлогами десятки террористов из тюрьмы в Гуантанамо, и многие из освобождённых вернулись к своему кровавому джихаду. Поэтому убедительно звучит возражение Глик журналу «Атлантик», утверждающему, будто «Обама стремится усилить умеренных мусульман в их борьбе против радикалов». Вывод журналистки: «Обама далёк от помощи  умеренным мусульманам. В реальной политике он помогает радикалам. С тех пор, как он вступил в должность, Обама стремится и в США, и на Ближнем Востоке наделить влиянием радикальных мусульман за счет умеренных».

Фаворит, если судить по последним опросам, в борьбе за президентство США Хиллари Клинтон говорит примерно то же, что Обама. Она, как и Обама, не произносит страшных слов «исламский терроризм», чтобы «не демонизировать целую религию и объявлять ей войну». По ее словам, это «лишь сыграло бы на руку ИГИЛ». Хиллари призвала американцев налаживать диалог с живущими в США мусульманами, чтобы «вместе справиться с этой угрозой». Она также поддерживает необходимость «основанных на здравом смысле реформ» законов о владении оружием.

Хиллари столь мягка к джихадистам не из идейных побуждений, как Обама (анти-антитеррорист, назвал президента бывший прокурор Маккарти в статье для NRO). Её позиция объясняется, очевидно, тем, что, по сообщению того же NRO, по меньшей мере 20%  фондов её президентской кампании дарованы ей Саудовской Аравией. Её многолетняя ближайшая советница Хума Абедин – из высокопоставленной семьи в Мусульманском Братстве.

Удивительна реакция на резню в Орландо общественного мнения американцев. Благосклонность к исламистам Обамы и Хиллари – одного – духовная, другой – меркантильная, известна давно. Рейтинг Обамы, долго колебавшийся в районе 40%, поднялся после теракта в Сан-Бернандино в декабре 2015 года к 52%. Не опустился он и после Орландо. Хиллари до Орландо в опросах стояла примерно наравне с Доналдом Трампом. После теракта её рейтинг немедленно скакнул вверх, и превысил рейтинг Трампа на 12%.

Трамп занимает последовательную позицию относительно исламистской угрозы США. Он предлагает прекратить допуск в страну мусульман, пока названная угроза не исчезнет. И конечно, он против приёма Америкой сирийских беженцев, дополнительные 65 000 которых решил недавно впустить в США Обама. Почему американцев не привлекло, особенно в свете чудовищных жертв в Орландо, такое предложение?

Чтобы понять в целом состояние американского общества, мне представляется необходимым привлечь теорию демократий замечательного шотландского мыслителя конца 18 века лорда Александра Тайтлера. Тайтлер занимался историей античных Афин и сделал вывод, что примерно за 200 лет своего существования демократическое государство проходят восемь фаз от возникновения, развития и расцвета до угасания. Последние три фазы, актуальные для сегодняшней Америки, по Тайтлеру: от самодовольства до апатии; от апатии до зависимости; от зависимости назад в неволю.

Перед выборами 2012 года Митт Ромни определил, что 47% американцев получают разного вида пособия и поэтому находятся в зависимости от государства и проголосуют за демократа. В последние четыре года Обама заметно расширил круг зависимых, их число уже наверняка превысило 50% от всего населения. Апатия, связанная с чувством зависимости, тоже возросла. Хиллари, имеющая хорошие шансы на волне окутывающей американцев апатии победить, обещает дальнейшее «перераспределение доходов», то есть раздачу гражданам незаработанных ими денег. Исход ноябрьских выборов обещают решить граждане, желающие больше таких незаработанных денег. По теории Тайтлера, грядёт последняя стадия угасания – «от зависимости в неволю».

Однако наступление исламистов таит в своих успехах противоречие, которое может эти успехи перечеркнуть. После теракта в Орландо в NRO появилась статья, подписанная: «Аноним».

Автор, гей-активист, пишет: «Я понял с жестокой ясностью, что в иерархии прогрессивного движения мусульмане стоят выше геев. Каждый ученый и политический деятель, включая президента Обаму и Хиллари, и половина «говорящих голов» на ТВ, которые сегодня говорили: «Мы не знаем, что мотивировало стрелка», показали мне их истинные приоритеты: умиротворение мусульман им важнее, чем защита жизни геев. Каждый либерал, пытающийся оградить исламских убийц, становится соучастником убийств, и я больше не хочу быть частью их команды. Мне просто надоело. Они – больные лицемеры, больные сводники... И вы знаете, что делает меня еще злее? Тот факт, что я должен скрывать свою личность и остаться анонимным в данном эссе. Если я выдам себя как сторонника Трампа, я подвергнусь преследованиям всех, кого знаю. Я буду линчёван бандой, с которой вплоть до вчерашнего дня водился».

А что будет с либеральным альянсом, когда исламисты достаточно насолят и феминисткам?

Недавно Жанна Сундеева напечатала статью о состоянии американского общества под названием: «Предчувствие гражданской войны…» Не вспыхнет ли такая война локально внутри либерального лагеря? Это могло бы спасти страну.

Напоследок – недоумение из области мистических. На 12 июня этого года выпал важнейший праздник иудеев – Шавуот. Перед этим, начиная с Песаха, религиозные  евреи тщательно отсчитывали 49 дней «приношения омера». Шавуот – 50-й день отсчёта. Христиане называют свой праздник, связанный с нашим – Пятидесятницей. И в этот день завершения отсчёта 49-ти дней приношения омера мусульманин Омар убил 49 человек, сам став 50-й жертвой.

Существует мнение, что случайных совпадений не бывает. Что может означать это?

I'm a Gay Activist, and After Orlando, I Have Switched My Vote to Trump

BY ANONYMOUS JUNE 12, 2016

CHAT 1490 COMMENTS

This is the saddest day of my life. I can't even wrap my mind around the horror of what happened last night in Orlando, where 50 joyful dancing queers were murdered by a religious extremist. I'm sad -- devastated, in my soul -- about that; but I'm also sad that the events of Orlando have shattered my political beliefs, as I can no longer swear allegiance to a peace-love-and-unicorns progressive philosophy that only helps to get my fellow queers killed.

Yes, there is a war between religious fundamentalism and the spirit of love and tolerance. But we progressives here in America still labor under the delusion that the religion we need to combat is Christianity. But that's a strawman opponent, and has been so for decades. Since the 1990s, Christian extremists have essentially lost all their power, and are now toothless nonplayers in the "culture wars." Meanwhile, Muslim extremists, with guns, murder us, and on the left our only response is to bleat about "Islamophobia" and jump through hoops trying to explain away the self-evident religious motivation for the killings.

SPONSORED

Oh sure, all year I've been playing the "Bernie or Hillary?" game with all the other default-Democrats in my social and professional circles. But this is no longer some kind of game. Our lives are on the line. Although I voted for Hillary in the primary, I now cringe inwardly with shame and embarrassment at having done so, and in November I will vote for Trump.

Imam Speaking in Orlando Said Gays Must Be Killed Out of 'Compassion'

Why? Yes, I know that Trump is an a**hole, Trump is a clown, Trump is a motormouth buffoon. You don't have to convince me of that. But he's also the only person saying anything about putting the brakes on Islamic extremism, and in light of what happened last night in Orlando, suddenly that is the only issue that really matters when it comes to the health, well-being and safety of the queer community.

As an aside, Trump has never said anything homophobic, and has always gotten along well with the gay community in New York, so there's that in his favor as well.

I also now realize, with brutal clarity, that in the progressive hierarchy of identity groups, Muslims are above gays. Every pundit and politician -- and that includes President Obama and Hillary Clinton and half the talking heads on TV -- who today have said "We don't know what the shooter's motivation could possibly be!" have revealed to me their true priorities: appeasing Muslims is more important than defending the lives of gay people. Every progressive who runs interference for Islamic murderers is complicit in those murders, and I can no longer be a part of that team.

I'm just sick of it. Sick of the hypocrisy. Sick of the pandering. Sick of the deception.

And you know what makes me angrier still? The fact that I have to hide my identity and remain anonymous in writing this essay. If I outed myself as a Trump supporter, I would be harassed and doxxed and shunned by everyone I know and by the Twitter lynch mobs which up until yesterday I myself led.

I am ashamed. I am angry. And I am sad. I don't want to vote for Trump, but I must. And if you care about the safety of the gay community in America, so must you.

First They Came for the Gays

How Anti-Semitism Became Respectable Again

 

BY DAVID P. GOLDMAN JUNE 10, 2016

CHAT 376 COMMENTS

The world was anti-Semitic in 1944, when Ben Hecht wrote A Guide for the Bedevilled. The majority of educated, civilized, and rational people believed that the Jews in some fashion had brought their own problems upon themselves. Hecht began fighting anti-Semitism after an unsettling exchange with a New York hostess, who explained to him that Jews had to acknowledge their own responsibility in the matter of their persecution. This polite Gentile lady explained:

The Jews complain. They suffer dreadfully, and they accuse. But they never stop to explain or to reason or to figure the thing out and tell the world what they, and only they, know...They are--how shall I put it--collaborative victims, a thing they refuse to see...The Germans are not a race of killers, fiends, of a special and different sort of sub-humans.

Not that she approved of Nazi genocide, to be sure; she may not have known the extent of the butchery, but she  knew that dreadful things were happening to Europe's Jews. But she thought that the Germans must have had some kind of provocation to hate the Jews so deeply. Why else would the Germans hate Jews so much?

When did the old anti-Semitism return? For half a century the horror of a million Jewish children murdered by the Nazis stopped the mouths of the anti-Semites, but that memory has worn off. What Hecht's interlocutor believed in 1944, most liberals believe today, not to mention the vast majority of Europeans. Yes, the Arabs hate Jews, and express this hatred in a barbaric way, they will allow, but that is because Israel has provoked the hatred.

SPONSORED

Tripwires that once seemed taboo are being crossed every day. One was triggered in the new action film "Triple 9," which portrays a gang of ruthless Russian mafia killers operating under the cover of a kosher meat business. There are some violent Jewish criminals, but I have not been able to find a single example of an observant Jew among them. The filmmakers have invented a stereotype that has no instantiation in the real world.

Anti-Semitic caricatures used to be off limits. When Dickens created the far less offensive character of Fagin in Oliver Twist, he atoned by inventing the saintly Jewish figure of Rina in Our Mutual Friend. One finds unflattering portrayal of Jews here and there in English fiction (including some despicable poems by T.S. Eliot) but nothing like this filth. It's become acceptable to hate Jews.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu touched another tripwire this week by nominating mass-murderer Marwan Barghouti for the Nobel Peace Prize, an act hailed by theArab press. "Barghouti is currently serving five life sentences in an Israeli prison for his role in leading terrorist activities during the first and second intifadas that included dozens of suicide bombings against Israeli civilians. He is a former leader of the Tanzim, a militant faction of the Fatah party currently headed by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, that took credit for many of the murders during the bloody Second Initfada in the early 2000’s. In 2014, he called for the launch of a third intifada," the Jewish Press reported.

It is one thing to excuse Arab terrorism against Israeli civilians--the Left has done that throughout--and it is quite another to propose to reward murderers with the world's most respected humanitarian honor. The world of enlightened opinion has no tears for the half million dead Syrian civilians, the tens of thousands of Kurds murdered by Turkish security services, or the countless dead in the Iraqi civil war now unfolding between ISIS and Iranian-backed Shi'ite militias. But it cries a river for suicide bombers who murder Israelis, because the Israelis in some way were asking for it.

On most university campuses the majority of young brainwash victims take it for granted that Israeli nastiness is the source of the endemic Jew-hatred in the Muslim world. That mindse prevails from Berkeley to the Vatican Secretariat. A billion and half people cry from the bottom of their hearts: For us to live, they must die, or at least be driven from their homeland. The wretchedness and despair of this great mass of humanity, a tiny fraction of which has turned up on Europe's doorstep, is too great to ignore. Surely the Jews must in some way be responsible. It is enough to turn some liberal Jews into functional anti-Semites.

This is not a new thought. Before and during the Second World War it was the conventional wisdom. Authors whom I abhor like Ezra Pound and T.S. Eliot said it openly. An author whom I love, J.R.R. Tolkien, said it allegorically: in The Hobbit, the Dwarves (whom he explicitly identified with the Jews) bring the calamity of Smaug upon themselves through their own obsession with gold in their miner's kingdom at the Lonely Mountain. Tolkien was not an anti-Semite, not at least in the canonical definition (someone who hates Jews more than is absolutely necessary). On the contrary, he was something of a philo-Semite (he famously rebuked a German publisher who asked him to prove his Aryan heritage with the thought that he was sorry that he had no descent from "that talented people," the Jews). But he wrote in a period when everyone knew that the Jews were in some measure responsible for their own troubles.

Tolkien, to be sure, compensated for his earlier ambivalent portrayal of the Dwarves/Jews in The Hobbit by portraying an Elven-Dwarvish friendship in The Fellowship of the Ring, deservedly the most beloved English-language novel of the 20th century. He was a man of his times who at length rose above his times. Those who did not rise above their times included G.K. Chesterton, who conjectured that there must be some truth to the medieval allegation that the Jews made Passover matzoh from the blood of Christians, and Hilaire Belloc, who wrote a book entitled "The Jews" calling for the "elimination" or "segregation" of "the alien."

SPONSORED

Islam, as Bernard Lewis wrote in his seminal essay "The Roots of Muslim Rage," "has given dignity to drab and impoverished lives." What is that dignity? It is the consoling belief that despite the humiliation of the Muslims during the past two centuries, the Umma still possesses God's revelation and divine favor. The Christian West, from the White House to the Vatican to the Elysee Palace to the Kanzleramt, sustains this conviction by its courtship of Muslim good will. There is one great cognitive dissonance in the mix, and that is the transformation of the Jews from a despised, dependent and vulnerable minority to a Middle Eastern superpower. The return of the Jews to Zion threatens the belief that Islam is the seal of prophecy: how could God favor the Jews, who perverted the original revelation that Mohammed restored? That is why the Temple Mount remains a radioactive issue on the Muslim street. Merely by being there, Israel offers an existential challenge to Muslim identity. Conservative Muslim regimes, to be sure, may make a temporary accommodation with Israel when it is in their interest to do so; apocalyptic regimes like Iran's never will.

Muslim civilization is crumbling, as I warned in my 2011 book "How Civilizations Die (and Why Islam is Dying, Too)." The human cost of this crumbling will be horrific, ranking among the worst humanitarian disasters in human history, and a disaster that we will watch in real time in high-definition video. The West is sickened by the spectacle and indifferent to its causes; if the Jews madden the Muslims, enlightened opinion thinks, let them go away.

Ich, ich dulde dass du rasest, Du, Du duldest dass ich atme, wrote Heinrich Heine of the relationship between Gentiles and Jews in 19th century Europe: I tolerate your rage, and you tolerate my breathing. Things have changed. The crime of the Jews today is to breathe, and especially to breathe the air of their own country. As the body count rises, enlightened opinion once again will blame the Jews for breathing. Muslims will continue to engineer humanitarian disasters (as in the last Gaza War) to solicit Western sympathy, and European governments will attempt to placate their growing Muslim populations by blaming Israel.

The difference between today and the 1930s, to be sure, is that Jews are armed rather than defenseless. I am weary of excusing myself for breathing. Let them hate us as long as they fear us.

«Предчувствие гражданской войны…»

Posted By: Жанна Сундееваon: June 04, 2016

 Print Email

«Я не разделяю ваших убеждений, но готов умереть за ваше право их высказывать», эти слова приписывают Вольтеру, но принадлежат они  английской писательнице  Эвелин Холл, взяты из ее книги «Друзья Вольтера» и являются парафразом выражения Вольтера «Думайте и позволяйте другим думать тоже» из «Трактата о веротерпимости».

Начну кратко и с главного: 1 июня американский гражданин Дональд Трамп приехал в рамках своей избирательной кампании на пост президента США в американский город Сан-Хосе на встречу с американскими же гражданами, своими избирателями.
Проблема в том, что люди, пришедшие поддержать его, подвергались атакам во время и после митинга, когда расходились и разъезжались.

Несколько лет назад, когда возникло движение Tea Party, я как-то услышала, что его представителей назвали в прессе фашистами, расистами, и подумала: надо сходить на их встречи и посмотреть своими глазами, что же они из себя представляют. Потому что лучше всего увидеть самой.

Пошла и посмотрела.  Абсолютно нормальные люди, которые принадлежат к разным партиям, кто-то работает на компании, кто-то владеет своим бизнесом, разный возраст, пол. Люди, с которыми можно соглашаться или нет по каким-то вопросам, но которые в массе способны услышать вас и привести свои доводы.  С ними возможен нормальный разговор.

Когда в Сан-Франциско лет 5 назад приезжал Обама, как сейчас приехали Сандерс, Клинтон и Трамп, был организован митинг против него.
Конечно, я туда пришла…  Наша группа стояла возле Fairmont Hotel с лозунгами, плакатами.

Напротив нас стояла восторженная толпа поклонников Обамы.  Как вы думаете, был ли кто-то из них избит?  Облили ли кого-то помоями, закидали ли помидорами? Оскорбляли ли кого-то? Разбили ли кому-то машину?

Не открою большого секрета, если скажу – нет, ничего этого не было.  Люди, стоящие на нашей стороне, причем люди из разных партий, понимали, что они могут не соглашаться с оппозицией, но они не имеют права затыкать другим рот.

Они живут в стране, где пока еще существует свобода слова.

А слышали ли вы, уважаемые читатели, о том, что сторонники Круза или Трампа  кого-то избили, сорвали выступление мадам Клинтон или тов. Сандерса? Преследовали сторонников вышеназванных кандидатов после выступления?
Я не слышала.

Трампу срывают выступления постоянно. Я никогда не была его поклонницей, но, во-первых,  мы выбираем из того, что имеем…А имеем, помимо него – патологическую лгунью, взяточницу и убийцу Хиллари и полубезумного, хотя и искреннего социалиста  Сандерса, человека без профессии, очередного уличного агитатора.

Во-вторых, я не люблю такого свинства по отношению к людям. Не дать человеку сказать? Затыкать рот?! Как это все более и более принято в последнее время в университетах, которые по идее должны быть источниками свободных дискуссиий…
Один мой хороший знакомый, молодой американец с добрым сердцем попытался мне «объяснить», почему, мол, именно Трампу не дают говорить, почему ему угрожают и т.д. «Ну, ты же понимаешь, он такие вещи говорит – стену построить… он сам провоцирует людей…»

Что интересно, не только мой знакомый, человек молодой и вне  политики, сказал это, но и мэр Сан-Хосе демократ Sam Liccardo усмотрел вину Трампа в том, что тому не дают проводить митинги.. В чем вина? Я думаю, в том, что Трамп посмел ступить на калифорнийскую землю.  Как тот ягненок, который виноват в том, что волку хочется кушать.

Мэр третьего по величине города Калифорнии, находящегося в сердце Силиконовой Долины, по сути одобряет беспорядки, драки, угрозы в адрес своих политических оппонентов. Мэр винит Трампа в том, что толпа бесчинствует на улицах и не дает поддерживающим Трампа людям прийти на митинг или уйти с него неизбитыми!

Любопытно вот что: фашист, расист, антисемит и исламист Луис Фаррахан вещает такое, что с непривычки можно просто не понять, где мы – в США или в Саудовской Аравии или нацистской Германии в 1933 г.. Вы слышали о том, что ему не дали говорить? Или что его последователей били, когда они шли с митинга? Нет.

Второй момент: никакая толпа не выходит на улицу сама…Людей выводят на улицу организованно те силы, которым это нужно.  Ради той цели, которую им надо достичь.   Потом эта толпа начинает жить своей «жизнью», превращаясь почти всегда в то, что вы увидите на ролике ниже. В быдло, которым уже трудно управлять. Убьют, покалечат и не заметят. Потом сядут, и те, кто их на улицу вызвал, просто про них забудут… Но это будет потом.
Так что не надо рассказывать о стихийных протестах возмущенных  людей.

Это не отдельные люди со своим мнением, соблюдающие Конституцию США, дающие право другим иметь свое, отличное от них мнение.  Это не люди, способные думать и уж тем более давать думать другим.
Это погромщики, которые вышли избивать инакомыслящих, нарушать законы США.

Вот что рассказали люди, кстати, демократы по партийной принадлежности, которые пришли просто послушать, что же скажет Трамп.
«Я видела, как одна семья с двумя детьми-подростками побежала в гараж к машине, а за ней группа молодых людей с угрозами… В гараже били машины… не давали выехать…». «Один парень бежал от толпы, ему подставили подножку, он упал, его ударили ногами, обступили и обзывали…» «В толпе погромщиков было много молодых людей с характерными гангстерскими татуировками, у некоторых лица были замотаны шарфами…» «Я поражена: было много белых американцев среди толпы протестующих, и они бесновались точно так же, как бандиты, точно так же…» «К тем, кто был в кепи со словом Trump, подходили и сбивали кепи, потом сжигали, срывали футболки с людей…» «Толпа окружала отдельных людей, их оскорбляли, в них кидали яйца… Полиции почти не было. Было несколько человек с огромными мексиканскими флагами…»

Будь на месте мэра или шефа полиции реальный лидер, лидер, а не политическая тряпка, о которую ноги противно вытереть, он бы нашел в себе силы это бесчинство остановить, а не идти на поводу у манипуляторов и не винить в произошедшем людей, у которых другие взгляды.
Потому что если идти по этой дорожке – так и всем тем, кто понимает, что Обама и что левые либералы делают с этой страной, надо  выйти на улицы и драться.  А это – гражданская война, к которой нас толкают левые. Это кризис, который, согласно учениям  радикала Саула Алинского, не должен пройти зря. А должен служить смене строя.

Для меня это простой урок: с такими лидерами, каких мы сегодня имеем,  у нас с вами нет защиты от толпы, от погрома, у нас отбирают свободу слова, она предоставляется только тем, кто клонится вместе с линией партии.
А там мы уже были.

Можно не любить Трампа и его идеи. Можно не голосовать за него.

Но он имеет полное право говорить то, что думает, там и тогда, где и когда считает нужным.  А мы имеем право приходить на те митиги, на которые мы хотим и имеем право уходить с них неизбитыми.

Посмотрите это видео. Это свобода слова или погром?

И именно по этой причине я буду голосовать за Трампа. И пусть мой голос в Калифорнии ничего не решает. Пусть я не уверена в том, что он сделает то, о чем говорит, пусть я не соглашаюсь с ним в каких-то вещах, но я из принципа буду голосовать за того, кому самым бесстыдным образом затыкают рот.
А на самом деле – не только ему – нам всем. Нам всем плюнули в лицо в очередной раз.

P.S. Когда статья уже была написана, всплыло это объявление на сайте Craigslist “to whom it may concern: we will pay $15.00 an hour plus travel (including room and board), clothing, flags, signs, etc.. for individuals willing to disrupt Trump rallies throughout the US. If interested please leave your name and contact number”. Это обращение ко всем желающим: «Мы заплатим всем, желающим прерывать встречи и митинги Трампа по всей стране, $15 в час плюс расходы на дорогу, проживание, питание, одежду, плакаты. Заинтересованы? Пришлите свой номер телефона».

Вот так. А вы пашете, да? Рано встаете, налоги платите. Зачем работать, когда можно бандитствовать, избивать людей, хамить, быть тем, кто ты есть на самом деле, – быдлом, и при этом деньги получать, жрать и пить, ездить по стране?!
Кто платит? Я не знаю, но я вижу, что колоссальные средства вкладываются в то, чтобы превратить США в либеральное, гангстерское государство, разрушить законы, Конституцию и дать власть шариковым. Сорос, Клинтон, наши радикальные исламские «друзья» или скорее всего они вместе – я не знаю. Но нам пора всем задуматься, даже тем, кого не интересует политика, но интересуют 20 способов приготовления котлет… Пора, потому что политика уже начала активно интересоваться вами. Вы не были на «том» митинге, вас пока не избили… Но завтра вы пойдете на другой – в синагогу, в церковь, на митинг в защиту ваших детей и вашего права их воспитывать – а привычка избивать инакомыслящих у быдла останется. И уже не важна суть митинга. Важно заставить нас не думать и мыслить, как приказано левыми. Вы либо думаете, как вам сказано, либо будете избиты (в лучшем случае).
Сегодня это быдло на митингах в масках и тряпках на лицах, а завтра им сошьют форму, назовут «народными отрядами» и покажут врага. Это мы. И вы, если привыкли иметь свое мнение. «Толерантность» либералов, о которой они так громко кричат, заключается в том, что мы должны делать и думать так, как они считают правильным. Тогда нас погладят по головке, а может, дадут конфетку. Инакомыслие уничтожается. Пока не так, как в СССР. Но долго ли ждать? И хотите ли вы ждать, пока за вами придут?

By Heather Wilhelm
June 16, 2016

On Tuesday, the New York Times released a stunning editorial blaming Sunday’s horrific Orlando terror attack on…wait for it…Republicans.

No, I’m not pulling your leg. “While the precise motivation for the rampage remains unclear”—more on that later—“it is evident that Mr. Mateen was driven by hatred toward gays and lesbians. Hate crimes don’t happen in a vacuum. They occur where bigotry is allowed to fester, where minorities are vilified and where people are scapegoated for political gain. Tragically, this is the state of American politics, driven too often by Republican politicians who see prejudice as something to exploit, not extinguish.”

This is strange, given that Omar Mateen, the now-infamous shooter at the Pulse nightclub, did not mention Republicans when called 911 to pledge allegiance to ISIS and its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. According to the latest reports, he did not mention Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell when he called a local television station and declared the following: “I did it for ISIS. I did it for the Islamic State.” He did not rain down curses upon America’s roiling bathroom wars or even the scourge of supply-side economics when, terrified eyewitnesses reported, he said “he wanted America to stop bombing his country.”

Well, never mind all that. What do words even mean these days, anyway? “The 49 people killed in Orlando were victims of a terrorist attack,” the Times concludes, albeit reluctantly, given that 98 percent of its editorial blames Republicans instead, neglecting to mention that Mateen was a registered Democrat. “But they also need to be remembered as casualties of a society where hate has deep roots.”

Those “deep roots,” at least according to our friends at Salon, Rolling Stone, The New Republic, and a branch of Planned Parenthood Action, also include a special something called “toxic masculinity.” Mateen, at least according to this framework, was a catastrophic crockpot of conflicting prejudices, bigotries, societal corruptions, and, most importantly, a consistent hatred of women. ISIS, you see, was just a convenient smoke screen for Mateen’s real motives; in this view, no one could really believe any of that wild and crazy religious stuff too.

Yet another culprit, in case you missed it, has become a media darling of late: the AR-15, a rifle that many journalists pretend they know everything about (pro tip: most don’t) and that also, inconveniently, was not actually used in the Orlando attack. Mateen’s gun was a Sig Sauer MCX carbine, but that didn’t stop Newsweek, the Washington Post, and dozens of other media outlets from obsessively lunging at the AR-15, declaring it a “weapon that shoots off 700 rounds in a minute”—that would be Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson being wildly incorrect—and, by extension, demonizing the millions of law-abiding Americans who safely own this gun.

Eh, details, what do they matter? Meanwhile, in the wake of the nation’s worst mass shooting in history, CNN’s Anderson Cooper berated Florida’s attorney general for not tweeting about gay pride. On Facebook, popular evangelical blogger Jen Hatmaker scolded her fellow Christians for what she saw as hypocritical attempts to show post-Orlando love and compassion: “Anti-LGBTQ-sentiment has paved a long runway to hate crimes.”

President Obama, not to be outdone, subtly blamed America. We need to do some “soul searching,” he told the nation, sounding exhausted, adding that Americans need “the strength and courage to change.” The president was not, alas, talking about changing the FBI, which, under his own administration, was apparently quite aware of Mateen, interviewed him multiple times, and was even warned by Disney World that he was likely casing out an attack. No, no: “These lone actors or small cells are very hard to detect,” Obama told America, despite clear evidence otherwise, “and very hard to prevent.”

Donald Trump, for his part, predictably yelled about immigration and his proposed Muslim ban, despite the fact that Mateen was born in the United States. Trump, who has had his usual wild-eyed carnival of a week, also called out Obama for his studied refusal to say “radical Islam.” The president, clearly furious, lashed out: “What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change?”

Well, I can think of one thing that needs to change: The frenzied and absurd finger-pointing among Americans, at each other, in the wake of a horrific attack. If a turn of phrase can turn attention outward to the clear challenge of ISIS—and inward to our failed and cumbersome security apparatus, clearly unable to rise to this challenge—it would at least be a start.

Heather Wilhelm is a writer based in Austin,Texas. Her work can be found

By 

DANIEL HENNINGER

June 15, 2016 6:32 p.m. ET

The day after Donald Trump accused Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton of refusing to say “radical Islamic terrorism,” President Obama called Mr. Trump’s charge a “distraction” from fighting terrorism. Possibly so, but it wasn’t the only distraction.

Within hours of Omar Mateen verbally dedicating his slaughter of 49 people to Islamic State, terrorism got drowned out by an outpouring of other subjects.

Here, for example, is the New York Times editorializing on the “many factors” that caused the Orlando massacre: “a vicious and virulent homophobia; a failure to identify and intercept those with histories of domestic abuse or threats of violence; a radicalized strain of Islam . . . .” The Times editors then added to this list “one other factor,” which of course is “easy access to guns.”

Hard as it may be to focus, the subject this week is, once again, just terrorism. Back in February after the New Hampshire presidential primaries, something in the exit polls caught my eye. It was that of the four “most important” issues facing the country, Democratic voters put terrorism fourth, at 10%. For Granite State Republicans it was 23%.

At the time, the 10% figure struck me mainly as an intriguing result from a small state early in the primary season. Still, the terrorist attack in San Bernardino had just occurred in December and the horrific Paris massacres a month before.

But that pattern—Democrats ranking terrorism fourth at 10%—held throughout the 2016 primary season. Even in military-minded South Carolina, terrorism registered at 10% with Democrats. For South Carolina Republicans, terrorism was the top issue at 32%.

In April, a study by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations of the primaries’ exit polls noticed the phenomenon: “Terrorism has been named as the top issue on average by one in ten (Democratic) voters, far behind the economy/jobs, income inequality, and health care.”

Does this mean Republicans are from Mars and Democrats are from Venus? Yes it does, and the Democrats know it.

A Wednesday Washington Post article titled “A Fight Over Nation’s Values” said: “Both Clinton and Obama were eager to shift the focus away from terrorism and the battle against Islamic State, an area of relative weakness for Democrats.”

The article itself was about an effort by Democrats to transfer the post-Orlando political conversation to Donald Trump’s “values.”

Donald Trump can certainly tweet for himself about his values. But Islamic State and its horrors, which do include San Bernardino and Orlando, began and metastasized while Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton presided over national security. Voters may reasonably ask themselves in November: Can the post-Obama Democrats be trusted to do what needs to be done to shut down you-know-who in their homicidal havens across the Middle East? Put differently, why is fighting terrorism recognized as “an area of relative weakness for Democrats”?

To the last man and woman, Democrats would go ballistic, if one may use that word, at the notion they are “soft” on terrorism, even if they’ve created a microagression-free vocabulary for the subject.

A less tendentious reading of the exit polls, they’d say, is that nearly all Democrats think terrorism is a problem, but most believe domestic concerns, such as income inequality, deserve more attention. They’d say the differences between the two parties, or between conservatives and progressives, is a matter of degree and not common concern.

I don’t think that’s true. The differences of degree are large, big enough to create significant margins of risk for the American public’s safety.

That difference is reflected not just in attitudinal preferences, but in policy results across a broad spectrum of real-world security matters, both domestic and international.

After the attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress passed the Patriot Act with virtual unanimity, presumably in recognition that the nation’s security apparatus was inadequate for the nature of this new threat.

The left argued that liberal Democrats voted for it because of post-9/11 “panic.” Soon, Democrats were legislating or filing lawsuits to pare back the Patriot Act’s provisions. The law’s title itself became a shorthand derision of then-President George W. Bush.

The experience with the Patriot Act, however, tracks with the divide on virtually every security issue: the many lawsuits to constrain the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the battles over the National Security Agency, litigation to end “stop-and-frisk” policing or the endless tensions over the Fourth Amendment and police investigations.

There are indeed serious constitutional issues raised by these disputes, but Democrats always end up on the same side of any policy affecting domestic or national security—conveying unmistakably that they find these functions morally distasteful, rather than morally necessary.

Two weeks ago, Mr. Obama told the Air Force Academy’s graduating cadets he had “put aside 50 years of failed policies” by using “diplomacy, not war.” That Air Force commencement was the 10% mind-set reflected in those exit polls. Now Hillary Clinton is wrapping herself in the Obama foreign policy. For the security threats that lie ahead, it still won’t be enough.

Why Speaking the Truth About Islamic Terrorism Matters

BY ROGER KIMBALL JUNE 15, 2016

I had planned to weigh in on the slaughter in Orlando right after it happened, but a sense of nausea intervened.

There was plenty of nausea to go around. You might think that the chief catalyst would be the scene of slaughter itself: the nearly fifty revelers at a gay nightclub dead, and scores more wounded by a single jihadist.

In a normal world, the spectacle of that carnage would have been the focus of revulsion. I confess, however, that the repetition of such acts of theocratic barbarism these past few decades has left me somewhat anesthetized.

The long, long list of "Islamist terrorist attacks" that Wikipedia maintains comes with this mournful advisory:

This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness.

Indeed, and alas. Take a look at that list: one thing you will note -- apart from the fact that the terrorist attacks are correctly denominated as "Islamist" terrorist attacks -- is that most years include more attacks than the years before.

There were some 35 in 2014. I stopped counting at 100 for 2015.

So my initial reaction to the news from Orlando was a mixture of anger, outrage -- and weariness. "Here," I said to myself, "we go again."

First came the casualty figures. Twenty dead. No, make that 30. Wait, it's 40, no, 50 dead and scores wounded, many gravely. And the murderer? The world held its breath and the media prayed: Please, please, please make him a white Christian NRA member, or at least a crazed white teenager.

No such luck. Omar Mateen was the 29-year-old scion of Afghan immigrants. Nothing wrong with that, of course. Right off the bat his father assured the world that he was "saddened" by the massacre (wasn't that nice?) and that Omar was "a good son." Religion, he said, had "nothing to do with" his son's rampage. He was just "angry" at gay people. So he suited up and headed down to the Pulse nightclub where he methodically shot some 100 people. Oh, and Mateen père has supported the Taliban, and claims to be running for the presidency of Afghanistan. (Cue the theme music from The Twilight Zone?)

It did not take long before the media realized that none of its preferred narratives was operative.

There was a flicker of hope that Mateen might at least be a gay-hating nearly white male (shades of George Zimmerman, the "white Hispanic"). But, no, although Mateen himself might, according to his ex-wife and others, have been gay, he hadpledged himself to ISIS. He had also, in fact, attracted the interest of the FBI. It hadinterviewed him twice but decided that there was nothing to see here, move along please.

In most respects, this act of Islamic slaughter was a matter of déjà-vu all over again. There was the wrinkle that the Pulse, unlike the nightclub in Bali or the concert hall in Paris, was patronized mostly by gays. But homosexuals are only one of many groups that Islamists wish to exterminate. (Hence the Arab slogan "First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people," which can be seen and heard through the Middle East. First we'll get rid of the Jews, then the Christians.)

And this brings me to the chief source of my nausea in response to the massacre in Orlando: the rancid, untruthful, politically correct nonsense emitted by the MSM and their chief pet, Barack Obama.

Obama's speech in response to the massacre was especially emetic. Who or what was to blame for the slaughter? The internet, for one thing:

[T]he killer took in extremist information and propaganda over the Internet. ... He appears to have been an angry, disturbed, unstable young man who became radicalized.

Remember when Obama dismissed ISIS (or, as he likes to say, "ISIL") as a "jay-vee" threat? That was right before those jihadists really got to work beheading people, burning them alive, and fomenting murder and mayhem in the West. Part of Obama's speech was devoted to listing all the Islamic murderers his administration had killed or deprived of funds:

ISIL continues to lose ground in Iraq. ISIL continues to lose ground in Syria as well. ISIL's ranks are shrinking as well. Their morale is sinking.

Feeling better?

Obama also reserved a few swats for guns:

We have to make it harder for people who want to kill Americans to get their hands on weapons of war that let them kill dozens of innocents.

But what if a few patrons of the Pulse had been packing heat and had had the good sense to hone their skills as marksmen? The same thing that would have happened at Virginia Tech, or Newtown, or the Paris concert, or the offices of Charlie Hebdo. Some enterprising citizen might have taken the madman, or madmen, out, thus materially diminishing or even eliminating the body count.

But Obama's main concern focused on a linguistic matter, the phrase "radical Islam":

[T]he main contribution of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have made in the fight against ISIL is to criticize this administration and me for not using the phrase "radical Islam." That's the key, they tell us. We can't beat ISIL unless we call them radical Islamists.

This is not true. No one has said that the word "Islam" or its cognates is the key to anything. What they -- and I -- have repeatedly said is that you can never deal with a problem unless you are willing to recognize it for what it really is. And part of that recognition involves calling things by their real names:

Since before I was president, I've been clear about how extremist groups have perverted Islam to justify terrorism. As president, I have called on our Muslim friends and allies at home and around the world to work with us to reject this twisted interpretation of one of the world's great religions.

Two points: first, extremist groups have not so much perverted Islam as they have enforced some of its central teachings.

As Andrew McCarthy put it: "Killing Homosexuals Is Not ISIS Law, It Is Muslim Law."

Andy cites chapter and verse to show how the interdiction against homosexuality is rooted in Sharia, i.e., in Islamic law. I'll just quote one passage, from the "moderate" Ayatollah al-Sistani. When asked “What is [Islam's] judgment on sodomy and lesbianism?”, he replied:

Forbidden. Those involved in the act should be punished. In fact, sodomites should be killed in the worst manner possible.

Got that?

Rhodes: ISIS Fight 'Will Be More Effective' Not Calling Them 'Religious Organization'

Which brings me to my second point: Obama's "Muslim friends and allies at home and around the world." That would include that ally of allies, Saudi Arabia, one of at least ten Muslim countries where homosexuality is punishable by death (and which, incidentally, is reportedly responsible for at least 20% of the funds for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign).

Obama took time out to castigate "politicians who tweet," i.e., Donald Trump. You may think, as I do, that some of Trump's proposals about how to deal with the reality of Islamic terrorism (among other things) are extravagant.

But at least he is able to call Islamic terrorism "Islamic terrorism."

Obama angrily insisted:

Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction.

But this is no merely linguistic nicety. Barack Obama has consistently failed to deal with the "Islamic" part of the reality of Islamic terrorism. Indeed, his administration has prevented the military, law enforcement, and intelligence services from engaging forthrightly with the threat of Islamic terrorism. They have insisted, for example, that briefing materials be purged of any reference to the real source of the terrorist animus: the passion for jihad fired by allegiance to the fundamental law of Islam, sharia.

In his almost eight years in office, Obama has left this country, and indeed the world, poorer, more chaotic, more vulnerable. Perhaps it was all part of his promise to "fundamentally transform the United States of America." It is worth remembering what an important role his mendacious refusal to call things by their real names has played in this sorry, nauseating tale.

"What's in a name?" Juliet asked Romeo. She found to her sorrow that the answer was "quite a lot." Obama, if he has the wit to acknowledge it, will discover that as well.

Obama has turned jihadist terror attack into personal gun war

By John Podhoretz

June 17, 2016 | 2:52am

Modal Trigger

On Thursday, when talking about the terrorist atrocity in Orlando in that city, President Obama acknowledged that Omar Mateen’s spree and the San Bernardino murders in December stemmed from the same root. But that root isn’t ISIS or jihad. The root is “derangement.”
These were “carried out, it appears, not by external plotters, not by vast networks or sophisticated cells but deranged individuals warped by the hateful propaganda that they’d seen over the Internet.”
The president could have placed Sunday’s attack in a different context — the context not only of San Bernardino but of the slaughter at the Bataclan club in Paris in November, and the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013, and the Fort Hood spree in 2009.
These are all the true precursors of Omar Mateen’s evil morning of slaughter — terrorist attacks in service of jihad, inspired by inciters and designers of jihadist violence.
But the president had a different villain in mind. His villain, the true object of his anger, was the political stalemate over guns. That is why he more precisely likened the Orlando atrocity to the killings at the elementary school in Newtown, Conn., and at the movie theater in Aurora, Colo.
Both of these mass shootings were the work of schizophrenic madmen, not determined fifth columnists. Indeed, to make the comparison to Adam Lanza of Newtown and James Holmes of Aurora all but explicit, Obama described Mateen not as a jihadist but as a “single deranged person.”
The president did so because he doesn’t want us to view Mateen as a volunteer in a war against the United States in which he served as a combatant against a cleverly chosen soft target. He wants us to view Mateen as another psychotic American with improper access to dangerous weaponry.
And one, moreover, whose reason for the attack was not to harm America as a whole but to act out his hatred against the LGBT community because of dangerous cultural messages he learned inside the United States.
This flies in the face of the phone calls Mateen made during the spree to 911 and to a local TV news producer, as well as the Facebook post he put up before he acted, all of which make it unambiguously clear he was acting in service of ISIS.
Indeed, the president all but dismissed Mateen’s reasons for action at the very moment he acknowledged the role of terror on Sunday morning. “Whatever the motivations of the killer,” the president said, the things we have to guard against are the

By CAROLINE B. GLICK \

06/16/2016 23:19

Column One: Obama and the moderate Muslims

In the 15 years since September 11, first under Bush, and to a more extreme degree under Obama, the US has refused to name the enemy that fights America with the expressed aim of destroying it.

As far as the White House is concerned, Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic’s top reporter, is President Barack Obama’s unofficial mouthpiece.

This was one of the many things we learned from The New York Times in David Samuels’s profile of Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes. 

In the course of explaining how Rhodes was able to sell Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, despite the fact that it cleared Iran’s path to a nuclear arsenal while giving the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism more than a hundred billion dollars, Samuels reported that “handpicked Beltway insiders like Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic... helped retail the administration’s narrative.”

Given his White House-assigned role, Goldberg’s explanation of Obama’s refusal to discuss radical Islam is worthwhile reading. It reflects what Obama wants the public to believe about his position.

On Wednesday Goldberg wrote that in Obama’s view, discussing radical Islam is counterproductive because it harms the moderates who need to stand up to the radicals.

“Obama,” he wrote, “believes that [a] clash is taking place [not between Western and Muslim civilization but] within a single civilization, and that Americans are sometimes collateral damage in this fight between Muslim modernizers and Muslim fundamentalists.”

Pointing out that there are Muslim fundamentalists, Obama has argued to Goldberg, will only strengthen them against the modernizers.

Over the past week, prominent conservative commentators have agreed with Obama’s position.

Eli Lake from Bloomberg and Prof. John Yoo writing in National Review, among others, criticized presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump for speaking openly radical Islam. Like Goldberg, they argued that Trump’s outspokenness alienates moderate Muslims.

But what moderate Muslims is Obama trying to help? Consider his treatment of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.

Sisi is without a doubt, the most outspoken and powerful advocate of a moderate reformation of Islam, and of Islamic rejection of jihad, alive today.

Sisi has staked his power and his life on his war to defeat the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic State and jihadist Islam in general.

Sisi speaks openly about the danger of jihadist Islam. In his historic speech before the leading Sunni clerics at Cairo’s Al-Azhar University on January 1, 2015, Sisi challenged the clerics to reform Islam.

Among other things he said, “I address the religious clerics. We have to think hard about what we are facing.... It is inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire Islamic nation to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world.

Impossible! “That thinking – I am not saying ‘religion,’ but ‘thinking’ – that corpus of texts and ideas that we have held sacred over the years, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world!...

“Is it possible that 1.6 billion people [Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants – that is 7 billion – so that they themselves may live? Impossible! “I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You imams are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move...because this Islamic nation is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost – and it is being lost by our own hands.”

Certainly since September 11, 2001, no Muslim leader has issues a clearer call for moderation in Islam than Sisi did in that speech. And he has continued to speak in the manner ever since.

No other Muslim leader of note has put everything on the line as Sisi has to defeat the forces of jihad both on the field and in the mosques.

Moreover, Sisi has put his anti-jihadist belief into action by expanding security cooperation between Egypt and Israel and by bringing the Gulf states into his undeclared alliance with the Jewish state.

He has also acted to end the demonization of Israel in the Egyptian media.

Obviously, supporting Sisi is a no-brainer for a leader who insists that his goal is to empower moderate Muslims. And yet, far from being Sisi’s greatest supporter, Obama opposes him.

Since Sisi led the Egyptian military in overthrowing the Obama-backed Muslim Brotherhood regime as it was poised to transform Egypt into a jihadist terrorist state, Obama has worked to undermine him.

Obama has denied Sisi weapons critical to his fight with ISIS in Sinai. He has repeatedly and consistently chastised Sisi for human rights abuses against radical Islamists who, if permitted to return to power, would trounce the very notion of human rights while endangering the US’s key interests in Middle East.

Then there is Iran.

If Obama fears radical Islam, as Goldberg insists that he does, why did he turn his back on the Green Revolution in 2009? Why did he betray the millions of Iranians who rose up against their Islamist leaders in the hopes of installing a democratic order in Iran where women’s rights, and minority rights are respected? Why did he instead side with the radical, jihadist, terrorism-supporting, nuclear weapons-developing and -proliferating ayatollahs? And why has Obama striven to reach an accommodation with the Iranian regime despite its continued dedication to the destruction of the US? Goldberg’s claim that Obama is interested in empowering Muslim moderates in their fight against radicals doesn’t pass the laugh test.

Obama’s actual schemes for relating to – as opposed to acknowledging, fighting or defeating – the forces of jihad involve empowering those forces at the expense of the moderates who oppose them.

Yes, there are exceptions to this rule – like Obama’s belated assistance to the Kurds in Syria and Iraq. But that doesn’t mean that empowering Islamic jihadists at the expense of moderate Muslims is not Obama’s overarching strategy.

In the case of the Kurds, Obama only agreed to help them after spending years training Syrian opposition forces aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood. It was only after nearly all of those forces cut contact with their American trainers and popped up in al-Qaida-aligned militias that Obama began actively supporting the Kurds.

Then there is his behavior toward American jihadists.

Almost every major jihadist attack on US soil since Obama took office has been carried out by US citizens. But Obama has not countered the threat they pose by embracing American Muslims who reject jihad.

To the contrary, Obama has spent the past seven- and-a-half years empowering radical Muslims and Islamic groups like the pro-Hamas terrorism apologists from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).

This week The Daily Caller reported that MPAC President Salam al-Marayati, is serving as an adviser to the US Department of Homeland Security.

Marayati accused Israel of responsibility for the September 11 attacks on the US, and has called on Muslims not to cooperate with federal counter-terrorism probes. According to the report, Marayati has visited the White House 11 times since 2009.

The Daily Caller also reported that a Syrian immigrant to the US was hired to serve as a member of Obama’s task for on “violent extremism” last year.

Laila Alawa, who joined the task force the day she received US citizenship, referred to the September 11 attacks as an event that “changed the world for good.”

According to the Daily Caller, her task force called for the administration to avoid using the terms “jihad” and “Shari’a” in discussing terrorism – as if Obama needed the tip.

So far from helping Muslim moderates, Obama’s actual policy is to help radical Muslims. In stark opposition to his talking points to Goldberg, since he entered office, Obama has worked to empower radical Muslims in the US and throughout the Middle East at the expense of moderates. Indeed, it is hard to think of an anti-jihad Muslim leader in the US or in the Middle East whom Obama has supported.

The victims in Orlando, San Bernadino, Garland, Amarillo, Boston and beyond are proof that Obama’s actual policies are not making America safer. The rise of ISIS and Iran makes clear that his actual policies are making the world more dangerous.

Maybe if his actual policies were what he claims they are, things might be different today. Maybe White House support for anti-jihadist Muslims combined with a purge of all mention of jihad and related terms from the federal lexicon would be the winning policy. But on its face, it is hard to see how forbidding federal employees from discussing jihadists in relevant terms makes sense.

How can enforcing ignorance of a problem help you to solve it? How does refusing to call out the Islamic extremists that Islamic moderates like the Green revolutionaries and Sisi risk their lives to fight weaken them? How does empowering jihad apologists from CAIR and MPAC help moderate, anti-jihad American Muslims who currently have no voice in Obama’s White House? Eli Lake argued that it was by keeping mum on jihad that then-president George W. Bush and Gen. David Petraeus convinced Sunni tribal leaders in Iraq to join the US in fighting al-Qaida during the surge campaign in 2007-2008.

The same leaders now support ISIS.

A counter-argument to Lake’s is that Bush’s policy of playing down the jihadist doctrine of the likes of al-Qaida had nothing to do with the Sunni chieftains’ decision to side with the US forces.

Rather, they worked with the Americans first because the Americans paid them a lot of money to do so. And second, because they believed the Americans when they said that they would stay the course in Iraq.

They now side with ISIS because they don’t trust America, and would rather live under ISIS rule than under Iranian rule.

In other words, for them, the question wasn’t one of political niceties, but of financial gain and power assessments. And that remains the question that determines their actions today.

In the 15 years since September 11, first under Bush, and since 2009, to a more extreme degree under Obama, the US has refused to name the enemy that fights America with the expressed aim of destroying it.

Maybe, just maybe, this is one of the reasons that the Americans have also failed to truly help anti-jihadist – or moderate – Muslims. Maybe you can’t help one without calling out the other.

www.CarolineGlick.com

by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY June 18, 2016 4:00 AM

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436783/obama-muslim-brotherhood-terrorism-radical-islam-violent-extremism

Sharia supremacists are not only shielded from scrutiny by U.S. intelligence but welcomed into the national-security apparatus. Barack Obama has spent his presidency cultivating Islamists, particularly from the international Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates in the United States. As we saw this week, he chafes at the term “radical Islam” — as do his Islamist advisers. At their insistence, he had instructional materials for training government agents purged of references to Islamic terms that illuminate the nexus between Muslim doctrine and jihadist terror. Obama’s vaunted national-security strategy, “Countering Violent Extremism,” is Orwellian. The term CVE supplants identification of our jihadist enemies with the wooly notion that “violence” can be caused by any form of “extremism” — it has nothing to do with Islam. By transferring security responsibilities from government intelligence agents to Muslim “community leaders” (often, Islamist groups), CVE actually encourages violent extremism. These steps have been reckless. They have made our nation more vulnerable to the kind of jihadist atrocities we saw last weekend in Orlando. So obvious is this that many Obama critics have gone from thinking the unthinkable to saying it aloud: The president of the United States seems to be intentionally betraying our national security; even if not squarely on the side of the terrorists, Obama is such an apologist for their Islamist grievances that he might as well be. I don’t buy this. Oh, I believe Obama is betraying our national security, but I do not think he is doing so intentionally. Instead, he has the good intentions, such as they are, of a left-wing globalist. The president sees security as a matter of international stability, not of a single nation’s safety — not even of that single nation that has entrusted him with its security. To grasp Obama’s conception of security, we must revisit a progressive fantasy oft-lamented in these columns, “moderate Islamists.” This is where the Muslim Brotherhood comes in. Here in the West, “moderate Islamist” is a contradiction in terms. An Islamist is a Muslim who wants to impose sharia (Islam’s repressive law) on a society. In the United States, that would mean replacing our Constitution with a totalitarian, discriminatory system. That is an extremely radical goal, even if the Islamist forswears violence and promises to proceed in Fabian fashion. Therefore, from the perspective of our free society, Islamists are the very antithesis of moderates. For a post-American transnational progressive like Obama, however, the context that matters is not our society. It is the world. He is the first president to see himself more as a citizen of the world who plays a critical role in American affairs than as an American who plays a critical role in international affairs. Viewed globally, the Brotherhood seems — in fact, it is — more moderate than ISIS, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and other infamous terrorist groups. I say “other” terrorist groups because the Brotherhood surely is one, which is why it should be formally designated as such under U.S. law. As I outlined in The Grand Jihad, the Brotherhood promotes terrorism. Its doctrine prominently includes jihad, and it has a long history of violence that runs to this very day. Indeed, Hamas — a terrorist organization that the Brotherhood masquerades as a “political” “resistance” movement — is the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch. Nevertheless, four things separate this very sophisticated organization from other jihadists: (1) The Brotherhood pretends to reject violent jihad, especially when dealing with Western audiences. (2) The Brotherhood opportunistically limits its overt support for jihad to situations that the international Left feels comfortable excusing (e.g., violence against “occupation” by Israel, or by American troops fighting Bush’s “unnecessary war of aggression” in Iraq). (3) The Brotherhood purports to condemn terrorist acts that it believes, judging from a cost-benefit analysis, are likelier to harm than to advance the sharia agenda (particularly the Brotherhood’s lucrative fundraising apparatus in the West). A good example is the 9/11 atrocities (but note that even there, the Brotherhood, like the rest of the Left, always adds that American foreign policy is jointly culpable). (4) The Brotherhood aggressively pursues a menu of nonviolent advocacy and sharia proselytism, known in Islamist ideology as dawah. As Brotherhood honcho and major Hamas backer Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi puts it, “We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America, not through the sword but through dawah.” The Brotherhood aggressively pursues a menu of nonviolent advocacy and sharia proselytism, known in Islamist ideology as dawah. For present purposes, the most salient of these Brotherhood strategies is the fourth. The menu includes international diplomacy, participation in various countries’ political processes, exploitation of civil-rights laws in various countries’ court systems, strong presence on college campuses (administration, faculty, and student societies), vigorous fundraising under the guise of charity, and aggressive influence peddling in the media and popular culture. Significantly, it is this menu of nonviolent pressure points, not violent jihad, that is the Brotherhood’s public face in the West. That is what enables the organization to pose as a comparatively moderate political and ideological movement, not a jihadist organization. That is what allows Brotherhood operatives to pass themselves off as “civil-rights activists” and social-justice warriors, not sharia radicals. This meticulously cultivated moderate pose is the Potemkin foundation on which Obama and other transnational progressives, including a fair number of leading Beltway Republicans, cooperate with the Brotherhood throughout the world. Obama is anxious to work with the Brotherhood on the Left’s theory that dialogue and cooperation always promote international stability — rather than convey that America’s principles are negotiable. Obama embraces the Brotherhood for the same reason that he negotiates with our enemies in Iran: the illusion that any talk is good talk; that any deal is a boon, regardless of how one-sided. The American wants peace through strength; the post-American globalist prefers peace “processes” and their inevitable peace “prizes.” As a practical matter, Obama cannot negotiate with ISIS or al-Qaeda. He would if he could, but they won’t. They are interested only in conquest, not compromise. By comparison, the Brotherhood does seem moderate — but only by comparison with these barbaric, full-throttle terror networks. Unlike ISIS, the Brotherhood is amenable to suspending the jihad while taking the concessions it can get through diplomacy and political processes — then going right back to jihad promotion when these alternatives have been exhausted. The Brotherhood is well regarded by many Sunni Islamist regimes with which our government hopes to cooperate in containing the regional aggression of Shiite Iran (aggression materially supported by Obama’s obsessions with deals and dialogue). There has even been a recent thaw between the Brotherhood and Saudi Arabia: Relations turned icy when the Saudis backed the ouster of Egypt’s Brotherhood-led government; but with Obama canoodling with Tehran, Riyadh has grown desperate for any allies it can find. On the world stage, the stage they care about, transnational progressives portray the Brotherhood as “moderate Islamists,” partnership with whom is vital if we are to achieve the panacea of global stability. The con job actually gets worse than that. The Brotherhood has figured out that “democracy” in Muslim-majority countries is the quickest route to imposing sharia. So it has taken on the mantle of “democracy” champions. By backing the Brotherhood, Beltway progressives purport to promote a “democratic transformation” of the Muslim Middle East. The fact that it would be a transformation to an anti-democratic, discriminatory, liberty-crushing system is, for progressives, as irrelevant as the fact that Obama’s empowering of the monstrous Tehran regime destroys the democratic aspirations of pro-Western Iranians. The progressive conception of stability — cooperation with rogues — is no friend of freedom. The Left clings to the conviction that the “mere” advocacy of radical ideology is constitutionally protected, even if what’s being advocated is the overthrow of our constitutional system itself. The Brotherhood has devoted three generations to building an infrastructure in the United States — an impressive network of affiliated Islamist organizations. To partner with the Brotherhood internationally therefore requires embracing the Brotherhood domestically. But how can Obama and other transnational progressives pull that off? After all, as we’ve seen, the Brothers may seem like “moderate Islamists” when they’re in the same neighborhood as ISIS; but here on our own soil, an Islamist is plainly a radical. Obama pulls it off by distorting law and history to sanitize the Brotherhood’s American Islamists. Here, we must consider the progressive version of the Cold War. The Left clings to the conviction that the “mere” advocacy of radical ideology is constitutionally protected, even if what’s being advocated is the overthrow of our constitutional system itself. Symmetrically, the Left also holds that (a) anti-Communism was more dangerous than Communism, and (b) the “living” Constitution can be “evolved” whenever necessary to protect aggressive “dissent” by the Left’s constituencies. Put it all together and you have Obama’s two core conceits: First, the Constitution immunizes the Brotherhood’s ideology from government scrutiny. Our agencies must deem anti-American sharia-supremacist advocacy as “constitutionally protected activity,” no matter how virulently anti-American it is; no matter that it supports Hamas (material support for which is actually a felony under American law); and no matter how many Islamists make the seamless transition from Brotherhood indoctrination to membership in other, more notorious terrorist organizations. Second, anti-terrorism is more of a danger to “our values” (i.e., Obama’s values) than is the regrettable but unavoidable fact that squelching anti-terrorism will result in the occasional terrorist attack — which Obama regards as more of a nuisance fit for law-enforcement procedures than a national-security challenge. There you have it: Obama is not really pro-jihadist; he is anti-anti-terrorist. As long as they don’t appear to be blowing up buildings, sharia supremacists are not only shielded from scrutiny; our president welcomes the Brotherhood into our national-security apparatus in order to reverse what progressives see as the dangerous excesses of real counterterrorism. That is how you end up with such lunacy as “Countering Violent Extremism.” That is how the jihad shakes off its post-9/11 shackles on the road to Orlando. So don’t say “radical Islam,” much less obsess over the carnage at the Pulse nightclub. After all, look how stable Obama’s globe has become. — Andrew C. McCarthy is as senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review. rorism-radical-islam-violent-extremism