Islamic extremist terrorism: The scourge that Obama dare not name

There's nothing more childish than living in a fantasyland

By S.E. Cupp

There's a famous painting of a pipe, by Belgian artist Rene Magritte. Under the pipe it says in French, "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" — "This is not a pipe."

The average onlooker says, "of course that's a pipe!" But Magritte is challenging the viewer to acknowledge that, in fact, they are not looking at a pipe, but, more accurately, a painting of a pipe.

It's surrealism at its most annoying. Magritte was that know-it-all at the party who corrects your grammar during a fun game of beer pong: "It's with 'whom' am I playing next."

To the average person, it's pretty clear we're at war with Islamic extremists. Yet, to hear President Obama tell it, we are not technically at war, and even if we are, he wants you to believe religion has little to do with it.

He and his surrogates have repeatedly refused to say the words "Islamic extremism" or "radical Islam" when describing our enemies in groups like Al Qaeda, Jabhat al-Nusra, ISIS and Boko Haram, just to name a few.

His administration was caught flatfooted last week when White House spokesman Eric Schultz painfully strained to justify negotiating with Taliban, insisting it was not a terrorist group but "an armed insurgency."

Surreal indeed.

Whether linguistic subterfuge or merely semantic nitpicking, it's a curious use of caution from an administration that has repeatedly gotten out over its skis on issues of foreign policy.

The list is long: Al Qaeda's been decimated. ISIS is Al Qaeda's "jayvee" team. Yemen is a success. Benghazi was about a video.

Obama is constantly speaking in brash declaratives about terrorism, and is often subsequently proven wrong. But uttering the words "Islamic extremism" is too reckless?

Of course, we are (quite literally) at war by anyone's definition — training foreign soldiers, deploying our own, dropping bombs in Iraq and Syria. Our military is aiding the Nigerian government in rooting out Boko Haram. We've reportedly spent more than $1 billion in our campaign against ISIS alone. And from Yemen to the Maghreb, Syria to Iraq, Europe to Japan, the groups we're fighting all claim to motivated by an Islamist ideology.

Yet, in an interview this weekend with CNN's Fareed Zakaria, Obama was asked to explain why we are not, in fact, at war with Islamic extremism:

"I don't quibble with labels," he said. "I think we all recognize that this is a particular problem that has roots in Muslim communities. But I think we do ourselves a disservice in this fight if we are not taking into account the fact that the overwhelming majority of Muslims reject this ideology."

Point well taken. Most Muslims are not aligned with ISIS and Islamic extremism. That's why the distinction is right there in the name. We don't say we are at war with Islam, but radical Islam or Islamic extremism.

More importantly, though, if there are people who truly believe that ISIS and Al Qaeda represent actual Islam, well, it wouldn't be the first time a religion was misunderstood or maligned.

But the White House is not Islam's PR shop. It's up to moderate Muslims to denounce radical Islam. The job of the President is to clearly name our enemies, not play word tricks on the public.

Another mistake the administration makes in justifying its cuteness with the language of terror is in suggesting we'll give Islamic extremists too much credit, or "provide a victory to these terrorist networks by overinflating their importance," as he told Zakaria.

Of course, not calling ISIS "Islamic extremists" — even though "Islamic" is right there in their name — hasn't stopped their reign of terror. Back in 2012, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a similar argument when she opted not to put Boko Haram on a terror watch list. In the coming years, they managed to elevate their status all on their own, however.

I think there are probably a couple things driving Obama's word games. One, he likes giving Republicans something to fixate on. He (often correctly) thinks it makes him look like the grown up. And two, never forget that he is the anti-Bush. So where Bush's enemies were clear, his must be vague.

But there's nothing more childish than living in a fantasyland. As the Chinese proverb goes, "The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names."

Say what you will about Bush's policies, but his bombastic rhetoric drove Islamic extremists into caves. In the years since, they have emerged from the darkness and now operate right in plain sight from the Middle East to the Maghreb to Europe.

All this in spite of Obama's subtle nuances.

National security is no place for surrealist word games. President Obama should have the courage and clarity to call it like it is. Our allies and our servicemen and women fighting this non-religious non-war overseas deserve to know who the enemy is.

Posted on February 6, 2015

Scarborough on Obama Prayer Speech: "Where Did He Go To Church? Where Would He Get Such Ideas From?"

JOE SCARBOROUGH, MORNING JOE: It's unbelievable, the moral equivalency. The president having to go back 700, 800, 900 years? You see this when you have people that somehow want to paint a broad brush. 'Uh, yes, radical Islam is bad but look what Christianity does.' Really, you have to go back 800 years to a Crusade which, by the way, most historians say Christians launched in response to years and years of Muslims taking over their former land.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: I think the timing is bad. I think it's a bigger conversation as to whether or not it's okay to have, you know --

SCARBOROUGH: Why does he --

BRZEZINSKI: I'm not arguing this.

SCARBOROUGH -- feel the need to go back 800 years? This stupid left-wing moral equivalency. Sometimes you can just say -- sometimes you just say, 'hey, you know what, there are some really, really bad Muslim extremists." You don't have to go to the other side, 'oh, and Christians are bad, too.' There is such a desperate plea for some reason on the left to do that, for some people on the left.

I saw a CNN documentary maybe five, six years ago and it was -- it was, you know, "extremism in the name of God." And they were so desperate to find Jewish examples of extremism and then -- this was right after 9/11 -- and then their example for Christian examples of extremism was some schools -- some Christian schools in America actually make women wear skirts below their knees. How ghastly. Let's see. Wear skirts below your knees on this side at fundamentalist schools, blow up the World Trade Center on this side.

BRZEZINSKI: Okay.

SCARBOROUGH: No, no, it's not okay. It's not okay for this president. You almost have to ask the question, where did he go to church? Where would he get such ideas from?

Read the comments here:  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/02/06/scarborough_on_obamas_prayer_speech_where_did_he_go_to_church_where_would_he_get_such_ideas_from.html#channel=f24567f8f08d74&origin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.realclearpolitics.com

Mark Levin: Obama Trying To "Protect The Muslim Faith," "Seeking To Destroy Israel"

MARK LEVIN, RADIO HOST: There you go. Randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.

Do you know why he says that? He’s trying to protect the Muslim faith.

Do you know why he trashes Christians over the weekend, the National Prayer Breakfast? He’s trying to protect the Muslim faith.

Do you know why they censor themselves and change the language in describing the enemy? Because he’s trying to protect the Muslim faith of his father…the Muslim faith he was around far more than the traditional Christian faith. If that’s Christianity they were practicing in Jeremiah Wright’s church, then I’m a Christian. And I’m Jewish.

I don’t think Barack Obama was ever taught about Christianity. He was taught about radicalism through a cereal box preacher camouflaged as a church. He was taught extreme radicalism rather than faith. The one faith he had exposure to was his father’s faith.

"Ah what’s he saying?"

I’m saying exactly what I’m saying. I don’t need interpreters. I don’t need spokes-idiots like Earnest and Psaki to say what I’m saying. I’m saying what I’m saying.

So Obama has an affinity for Islam far more than Christianity and Judaism. No question about it. No question about it.

I’m not surmising, I’m not implying. I’m listening to him. I’m watching him. He’s telling us this.

If organized religion, if organized Christianity were going through a continent slaughtering Muslims and Jews, and anybody else who wouldn’t agree with them, I think Obama would point that out.

Obama already is seeking to destroy Israel. THAT’S RIGHT I SAID IT! He seeks to destroy Israel!

Yes he does. He seeks to destroy Israel.

This I am convinced of now.

Revealed: Known jihadist members among attendees at secret White House meeting

Remember the piece I wrote firmly stating several reasons why President Barack Obama is an Islamist sympathizer? I think the case was laid out rather simply and wasn’t based on conjecture, but fact, actions and policies by the president. Of course I’m not the only one to say so. More and more Americans are coming to that conclusion as well.

You have to scratch your head after watching the recent Vox.com interview where Obama referred to the Paris Jewish Kosher store terror attackers as “folks” and “random.” And of course the historically inaccurate moral equivalency and relativism proclamations of the president at the National Prayer Breakfast further solidifies the case of our resident sympathizing with the Islamist enemy.

However, last week something happened even more damning for Obama (if that’s possible) – and he doesn’t seem to care. As you might recall, President Obama met with American Muslim leaders at the White House, but the administration was unwilling to reveal who attended the meeting, which was closed to the press.

But as reported by Investors Business Daily, “After complaints, the White House finally released names of the “Muslim leaders” Obama met with behind closed doors a week ago Wednesday. Now we know why it was secret. The list includes members of known jihadist groups. After stonewalling for days about the names of participants at the almost two-hour meeting with the president and his national security advisers – a meeting that was granted at the request of Muslim Advocates, an Islamist group that’s demanded a stop to NYPD surveillance of radical mosques, anti-terrorist drone strikes and Gitmo detentions – the White House quietly attached the list of attendees to the back of its daily press briefing transcript Thursday evening, according to the Washington Times.”

As you recall, it was the following day that President Obama delivered his very offensive and controversial comments at the National Prayer Breakfast. Here are some of the 14 Muslim leaders who had our presidents’ ear for two hours according to Investors Business Daily:

Imam Mohamed Magid, who preaches at a fundamentalist Northern Virginia mosque that has listed a number of trustees and major donors whose offices and homes were raided after 9/11 by federal agents on suspicion of funding terrorists.

Azhar Azeez, president of the Islamic Society of North America, a known radical Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas front group that remains on the Justice Department’s list of unindicted terrorist co-conspirators.

Sherman Jackson, who as the King Faisal Chair of Islamic Thought at USC, once gave a lecture at a conference in Toronto that has been described by “Campus Watch” as a “call to battle” between Muslims and the West.

Hoda Hawa (Elshishtawy) national policy analyst for the Muslim Public Affairs Council, which was founded by known members of the Muslim Brotherhood, a worldwide jihadist movement. The group’s former president, Salam al-Marayati, was once kicked off the National Commission on Terrorism after his defense of terrorist acts and the groups who carry them out was revealed.

It’s noteworthy that no representatives of the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, a terror-tied group the FBI has banned from outreach events, were invited to the White House. The FBI says CAIR is a “front” for the Hamas terrorist group.”

CAIR does however possess very posh headquarters on Capitol Hill and is an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest Islamic terrorist funding case in U.S. history – the Holy Land Foundation – but who cares, right?

I just want to ask a simple question. When was the last time Obama met with Christian leaders? (And Reverends Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, or Jeremiah Wright are not what I’m talking about).

Where are the voices of secular humanists and atheists, like the Freedom From Religion Foundation screaming about separation of church and state? I tend to believe there is an unholy alliance between progressive socialists, Islamo-fascists, and secular humanists. They do all seem to form the base for Islamapologists.

Aren’t you dying to know what they discussed?

“According to the Detroit Free Press, “the White House ordered the Muslim attendees not to talk after the meeting about what Obama said during the discussion. However, some have broken the ground rules and leaked what was discussed.”

“Topping the agenda was “anti-Muslim bigotry” and banning Muslim terrorist profiling by federal law enforcement. Participants said they got a sympathetic ear from Obama. The president reportedly entertained the idea of naming Muslim judges to federal courts. Meanwhile, the most pressing Muslim-related issue of our time – violent jihadism – was not discussed.”

So let me ask of y’all, what do you think will be the topic of the upcoming White House meeting on “violent extremism?” And who will be in attendance for that summit? I can bet there won’t be any Christian leaders – can’t have those mean Crusaders around.

So who will be defined as the “violent extremists” at the conference – the Tea Party? After all, how many times have we heard the voices on the left refer to Constitutional Conservatives as such?

Yesterday we found out that Kayla Mueller, a 26-year-old American woman was killed at the hands of ISIS – they were holding her hostage. Our response? Perhaps we’ll have more Islamic sharia courts like what’s rumored to be right here close to me in Irving, Texas.

Remember the rally for Charlie Hebdo? Of course you don’t, that’s how we roll in Western civilization, with emotional empty responses. Jordan knew how to respond – you didn’t hear about King Abdullah having meetings with Muslim Brotherhood affiliated individuals.

I will close with these thoughts from the Investors Business Daily article for you to ponder.

“If it seems Obama is more interested in protecting the Muslim community than America, that’s because he is more interested. As he vowed after 9/11, revealed in his 2006 memoir: “I will stand with (Muslims)” – even if Muslims are tied to another 9/11.That is, it is their “sense of security” that concerns him, and it is their needs he will tend to – over the needs and security of the majority of Americans. This is the man who’s supposed to be protecting America from violent Muslim fanatics. This is our commander in chief for the next two years, a period that may prove the most dangerous terrorist stretch in our history.”

Yes, the actions, statements, and policies of President Obama do lend one to believe he is an Islamist sympathizer. There are too many disturbing unanswered questions. Where was the request for authorization to support Islamists in Libya, and why did he abandon Americans to die in Benghazi and then lie about it? Why such affinity for the Muslim Brotherhood – going back to that 2009 speech in Cairo when he insisted they be seated in front?