Tag Archives: Cairo

President Obama: Jihad Your Chance to Win the Election

Moslems commemorate 9/11 in their special way.

The term for Christians and other non–Moslems living in Islamic countries is “dhimmi.” Think of it as Jim Crow with a turban. Think of it as Jim Crow right now.

According to Mitchell Bard, dhimmis in Islamic lands “on pain of death, were forbidden to mock or criticize the Koran, Islam or Muhammad, to proselytize among Moslems or to touch a Moslem woman.”

Dhimmis were forbidden to hold public office, serve in the armed forces or own weapons. Non–Moslems cannot build synagogues or churches taller than mosques, construct houses taller than those of Moslems or drink wine in public, which helps to explain Donald Trump’s absence.

A dhimmi’s testimony in court was worthless, which meant attacking dhimmis was penalty–free for Moslems, just like today.

But one doesn’t have to live in the Middle East to be a dhimmi. You could be the President of the United States and impose dhimmitude on an entire nation.

Obama orders our soldiers to wear white gloves when touching the Koran (no word on whether the troops are required to suit up before touching the Bible or Bagvad Gita) and avoid drinking or eating in front of Moslems during their Ramadan fast.

His administration can insist there is no nexus between Islam and terrorism; and collaborate with Muslim Brotherhood front groups here at home.

And the President can treat the murder of our Libyan ambassador and an attack on our embassy in Egypt as simply a random act in response to provocation from US citizens.

In full dhimmi mode the embassy in Cairo and Sec. of State Hillary Clinton scrambled to burn the Constitution in a futile effort to placate readers of the Koran. “The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims…” the statement read. “We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”

The death of the ambassador presented a problem for the State Department since he was important, and not a grunt in Afghanistan. They couldn’t blame his death on asking to see photos of a Moslem’s wife and kids, like the military does in “green on blue” attacks in Kabul.

So Hillary “strongly condemned the attack” and asked the same Libyans who allowed the murder to provide additional protection for the rubble.

An attack on an embassy or the murder of an ambassador is not a law enforcement problem. It’s an act of war. The proper response is not a hand–wringing statement and a eulogy for Ambassador Chris Stevens.

That would be like FDR — Obama’s hero — issuing a statement after Pearl Harbor that saluted the dead, praised them for their public service and failed to mention the attack by Japan.

The proper response to an act of war is a demand the perpetrators be handed over immediately.

And until then, the US 6th fleet should blockade Libyan ports and institute a no–fly zone over every airport. In the case of Egypt, the administration should end discussions on forgiving its $1 billion debt and Egypt should not get a penny of the $1.5 billion in aid until rioters who violated US sovereignty are turned over.

(On second thought, keep the rioters. Since they crossed an international border while invading our embassy, this administration might feel relieved to finally encounter illegals that don’t speak Spanish. There’s a real possibility Janet Incompetano would offer rioters a green card and a free college education.)

Unfortunately, none of this will happen. This weak, feckless, incompetent excuse for a President puts a higher priority on making sure the Pentagon allows homosexuals in military uniform to march in “gay pride” parades than he does in protecting Americans and embassies overseas on the anniversary of 9/11.

Instead the Cairo embassy apologetically announced there would be no visa services on Wednesday due to clean up from a previously unplanned al Qaeda festival.

Any psychologist will tell you successful behavior is learned behavior and since 1979 Moslems have learned attacking a US embassy is penalty–free and gives the attackers plenty of cachet with the hijab hotties.

One of the Islamists at the embassy storming explained, “This is a very simple reaction to harming our prophet.” So why can’t the United States have a very simple reaction to harming our embassy and our citizens?

A good friend of mine observed that if Obama had ordered Marines in Cairo to fire when the rioters crossed the wall, he would have won the election yesterday. Fortunately for Mitt Romney, that dhimmi knows his place.

Obama’s Carter Moment in the Middle East

While it’s not happening practically on the eve of the election, the attacks in Cairo and Benghazi are rapidly shaping up to be like President Carter’s situation with Iran in 1980. But, before the Romney camp can start celebrating, there are some very important issues that need addressing when it comes to the fumbling of the current administration. And there are some loose ends that need to be tied together.

First, let’s take a look at the events of yesterday, before the attacks. In the morning here in the States, Obama delivered remarks at the Pentagon. The more cynical among us were probably surprised that he limited himself at least a little, when it came to taking credit for the death of Osama bin Laden.

Most of the Americans we lost that day had never considered the possibility that a small band of terrorists halfway around the world could do us such harm. Most had never heard the name al Qaeda. And yet, it’s because of their sacrifice that we’ve come together and dealt a crippling blow to the organization that brought evil to our shores. Al Qaeda’s leadership has been devastated and Osama bin Laden will never threaten us again. Our country is safer and our people are resilient.

Perhaps the reference to the devastation of Al Qaeda’s leadership was alluding to the most recent death that has been brought up in context with the Cairo attack. But, that is something to consider a little later. For now, let’s leap to much later in the day, but still before the Cairo attack.

Andrew Kaczynski – @BuzzFeedAndrew

Only images of this tweet remain, this one from Andrew Kaczynski on BuzzFeed. The debate over government accounts deleting tweets, and the Library of Congress archives of those electronic communications can wait for another time. By the morning of September 12th eastern time, the Obama administration was backing down from this initial statement. It is not a reaction. The embassy doubled-down on the sentiment after the attack. But, this one came before it started, presumably because the embassy personnel knew there might be a riot in the first place. Questions and reprisals flew over this, and the administration’s attempt to back down from this position arguably is falling flat. Diplomatic personnel do not communicate with the world without guidance, period. Claiming that this was “unauthorized” is worse than admitting to the position, because it implies that there is a rogue element within the diplomatic corps that has the ability to communicate on behalf of this administration without any sort of guidance or supervision. And, bluntly, it is silly. This statement is typical of this administration, that has bent over backwards to appease Islamist organizations. One has to suspend disbelief to take this morning’s quasi-retraction of the statement seriously, especially since paraphrased forms of it were in both Obama’s and Secretary Clinton’s statements on these events – or event, depending on how one interpreted them.

That brings us to the tragedy that overshadowed the Cairo incident, and monopolized the official statements from the administration. Over the coming months, there is no doubt that there will be arguments over whether the Iran Hostage Crisis was better or worse than the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that resulted in the deaths of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three diplomatic staff members. Secretary Clinton was quick to point out that Libyans stepped up to help Americans, and defend the Consulate, including a mention that they carried the Ambassador’s body to the hospital. But, it’s unlikely that is the whole story. Before her speech, news had already broken that contradicted at least part of the Secretary’s comments. The whispers are already out there that the Libyans might have been involved in the attack, and that security at the Consulate wasn’t sufficient.

Given that, there is a possibility that these two attacks may be utterly unconnected, not even sharing cause. The anti-Mohammed movie is a rather thin excuse, even with many radicals in play in both nations. One of the filmmakers is in hiding, and another that has been attributed with the work is associated with a Coptic Christian organization in America. The fact that the film had been promoted to one extent or another by Terry Jones, of “Burn a Q’uran Day” fame, further muddies the water. Regardless, all accounts state that the film itself is laughable, poorly made, and definitely wouldn’t have been destined for anything but demise in obscurity if it wasn’t for these events. Perhaps it was enough to spark the flag desecration and chanting about Osama bin Laden in Cairo, but buying that it sparked the armed attack in Benghazi would be foolhardy. Conversely, accepting Secretary Clinton’s contentions that Ambassador Stevens was well-liked and accepted in Libya might not be intelligent either. That is by no means an implication that Stevens was doing anything wrong. It is a suggestion that maybe he was meeting more resistance in his attempts to help the Libyans than the administration is willing to admit publicly. That certainly makes more sense than blaming this all on an obscure, poorly made film.

And, in all of this, it seems that the media is happily avoiding one subject that this administration probably has no desire to cover. That is the question of the Muslim Brotherhood. Obama would have everyone believe that this an innocuous social service organization, that many current and former Islamic terrorists just happened to be associated with at one point or another during their lives. On the other side, alarmists cry that the organization is kin with Satan himself, and is hell bent on the destruction of the West. As with most things in life, the truth probably lies somewhere in between. For the purposes of bridging cultural gaps, perhaps it would be better to compare it with another organization that Americans are probably a little more familiar with – Sinn Fein, the political arm of Irish Republican Army. This suggestion is in the context of defining the function of the Muslim Brotherhood, not to imply direct connection between that organization and any terrorist groups. The MB has been scrupulous about keeping itself separate from those groups, and that is plainly illustrated by the fact that terrorists are apparently not welcome in the organization. They move on to more radical action after leaving the MB, period. But, that doesn’t change the fact that many Islamic terrorists get initial experience in Islamic activism within the MB. Sinn Fein was also careful to stay above the fray, and did not dirty its hands directly in the terrorist activities of the IRA. That is where the similarity lies, and there alone. Where Sinn Fein was implicated in funding IRA activities, the MB has not been connected financially or otherwise with any known terrorist organizations – at least that has not been uncovered, or reported widely.

The story behind these events is still unfolding, and it is possible that details may continue to filter out to the public even beyond November. But, the current take away is that yet again, the Obama administration has shown itself to be wholly disorganized, as shown with the initial communications from the Cairo Embassy via Twitter. To suggest that the President is beyond his depth is probably an understatement. Cairo and Benghazi do not exist in a vacuum, and Obama has done a great deal of harm to this nation’s diplomatic relations with the only true ally in the region – Israel. And that in itself is yet another story illustrating the amateurish foreign policy management in this administration. Whether or not this becomes a coffin nail for the Obama camp in November remains to be seen, but it would be bluntly insane if the Romney camp did not leave it alone for now, only to resurrect it late next month.

American Embassy in Cairo statement defends the wrong ideals

On September 11th, the American Embassy to Egypt in Cairo released a statement objecting to content that might hurt the feelings of Muslims.

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

“Respect for religious beliefs” is not a cornerstone of American democracy – the right of a religion to worship freely is. A true fundamental principle of the American way-of-life is freedom of speech. While a religion is free to practice as it wishes, as long is its practices do not infringe the rights of others, it is also the right of others to speak out against those practices they find disagreement with.

The Cairo embassy statement is in direct conflict with American values, but firmly in line with the apologetic line of the Obama administration.

Even the President’s own first statement on the Libyan embassy attack included an apology first and condemnation later as Obama said, “While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.”

It is perfectly acceptable for a free people to condemn the practices they see as wrong. Having the President and his State department defend one religion at the cost of free speech is weak and disrespectful of what makes America great.

If we may only say things that will never offend anyone, we will likely never say or do anything important or principled.