A leader in one of the several groups identifying under the “Islamic Resistance in Iraq” brand declared on Sunday that any negotiation between Baghdad and Washington on the presence of U.S. troops there will prompt “more pressure on the occupiers.”
The statement, republished in the Iranian state newspaper PressTV after appearing in the New Arab publication, followed an announcement by President Joe Biden on Sunday that jihadists had killed three American servicepersons and injured dozens in a drone attack on the border between Syria and Jordan. Biden claimed the strikes occurred in Jordan, where the Pentagon has about 3,000 troops stationed; the Jordanian government insisted that the attack occurred on Syrian territory.
Biden vowed he “will hold all those responsible to account at a time and in a manner our choosing,” though his administration has largely allowed dozens of attacks on American troops in the region to continue since the October 7 massacre of over 1,200 Israelis by the Sunni jihadist terrorist organization Hamas.
The Islamic Resistance in Iraq, the Lebanese Shiite terror group Hezbollah, Hamas, and allies such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Shiite Houthi terrorists of Yemen have all launched coordinated attacks on Israel, American assets, and Western allies in the aftermath of October 7 as a gesture of solidarity to Hamas’s call for the genocide of Jews in the region.
Biden’s announcement of Americans killed this weekend is the first such fatal incident for Americans in the region since October 7.
Biden generally blamed “Iran-backed” groups for the strikes. The Islamic Resistance in Iraq issued a statement on Sunday taking responsibility; if accurate, marking a significant geographical departure out of Iraq for most of its activities. They also published a video allegedly showing the strikes.
According to Al Mayadeen, a press outlet affiliated with the Lebanese terror organization Hezbollah, the Islamic Resistance in Iraq “declared that it conducted a series of drone attacks on five enemy positions in the region. Among these, three were aimed at US occupation bases situated in Syria, specifically targeting al-Shadadi, al-Rukban, and al-Tanf.”
“The fourth strike was directed at a base near Erbil Airport in the Iraqi Kurdistan region,” Al Mayadeen detailed. “The fifth operation was executed on the ‘Zevelun’ naval facility in occupied Palestine [sic].”
A commander of Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba, one of the groups under the “Islamic Resistance in Iraq” brand, suggested that the groups were preparing an escalation in attacks on Americans in comments published by PressTV on Sunday.
“Iraq’s negotiations with the Americans will never cause a decline in efforts by the Islamic resistance against the outsiders and they will even cause us to pile more pressure on the occupiers,” the anonymous “commander” reportedly said.
“Nujaba and other groups in Iraq, which operate under the umbrella organization of the Islamic Resistance in Iraq (IRI), have repeatedly said attacks on US positions in Iraq and Syria will continue until Israel ends its genocidal war on Gaza,” PressTV added.
Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba is one of a large number of militias active in Iraq with Iranian backing, and considered “perhaps the most aggressive anti-American Iran-backed militia in Iraq.” It gained notoriety in the jihadi world by releasing a nasheed, or jihadi war song, honoring Iranian terror mastermind Qasem Soleimani. Former President Donald Trump eliminated Soleimani from the battlefield with a targeted airstrike on January 3, 2020, while he was in Iraq coordinating attacks on U.S. forces with Iran’s allied militias there.
The “Islamic Resistance in Iraq” is considered to be made up mostly of those militias, though it appears to be intentionally unclear exactly which of the militias are involved in it or to what extent it is an established organization. The jihadists started using the term to refer to terrorist attacks against America and its allies in Iraq following the October 7 atrocities and has never defined itself or its members publicly.
Many of its members are believed to also be part of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), a coalition of majority Iran-backed, Shiite militias who became a formal arm of the Iraqi armed forces during the war to uproot the Islamic State “caliphate” in the country. The PMF took credit for fighting the Islamic State despite the Kurdish Peshmerga forces and U.S. troops doing most of the work. American military leaders praised the PMF for their “professional” work at the time.
Despite ample evidence that Iran, the world’s premier state sponsor of terrorism, funds PMF units and other militias and terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East, its foreign ministry officially denied any involvement in the attack that killed American troops.
“Iran is not involved in the resistance groups’ decisions about how to support the Palestinian people or defend themselves and the people of their countries in the face of any aggression and occupation,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Nasser Kan’ani said on Monday. “Iran monitors the developments in the region with readiness and vigilance and the responsibility for the consequences of provocative accusations against Iran rests with the perpetrators of such baseless claims.”
Kan’ani appeared to blame Washington for the deaths of the troops, claiming “the US’s insistence and continuous violation of the national sovereignty of Iraq and Syria and bombing attacks against the groups and people of Iraq, Syria and Yemen have intensified the instability in the region,” according to PressTV.
Iran’s terror proxies Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad – which the U.S. State Department estimated in 2020 receive $100 million annual from Tehran – openly celebrated the killing.
“The killing of three American soldiers is a message to the American administration that unless the killing of innocent people in Gaza stops, it must confront the entire Ummah,” Sami Abu Zuhri, a senior Hamas spokesperson, reportedly said, according to PressTV.
Palestinian Jihad declared the killing of Americans “a natural and legitimate response” to America’s presence in the Middle East.
Follow Frances Martel on Facebook and Twitter.
Instead, we see no such intellectual preparation. Facts have been abandoned and replaced with “personal truths.” Historical events have been rewritten for nefarious political calculations (Remember Obama’s insistence that Muslims were instrumental to America’s founding?). Biological sex and other inconvenient scientific precepts have been jettisoned, so that mental delusions and State-enforced Lysenkoism can manipulate reality. Government educators demand that ideas be “politically correct.” Rhetorical combat has been forbidden out of a pusillanimous devotion to avoiding “hurt feelings.”
Obama’s History 101: “Islam Has Been Woven Into the Fabric of Our Country Since Its Founding”
by Selwyn Duke February 22, 2015
Facebook Email Print PDF
Article audio sponsored by The John Birch Society
You’ve probably never heard of Founding Fathers named Gamal bin Washington and Thamar Jefferson, and neither has Barack Obama. But this didn’t stop him from making the claim that “Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding.”
While speaking in the White House’s South Court Auditorium during a conference on “countering violent extremism” last week, Obama said that we need to “stay true to the values that define us” and “show that we welcome people of all faiths.” The president then made the following claim:
Here in America, Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding. Generations of Muslim immigrants came here and went to work as farmers and merchants and factory workers, helped to lay railroads and build up America. The first Islamic center in New York City was founded in the 1890s. America’s first mosque [founded in 1929] — this was an interesting fact — was in North Dakota.
Of course, both these events occurred long after our country’s founding; in fact, 1890 was the year of the 11th U.S. census, which led to official recognition that there was no longer even a Western frontier in the nation. And there were no sheikhs or mullahs at the Constitutional Convention more than a century before.
Yet the Wednesday remark was just one of many historically illiterate statements by Obama, who at the recent National Prayer Breakfast likened the Crusades to Islamic jihad despite their having actually been a response to Islamic jihad. But the claim that Muslims were instrumental in America’s founding has been a theme with the president. As CNS News pointed out:
“I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story,” Obama said in a June 2009 speech in Cairo, Egypt. “Islam has always been part of America,” he said in a 2010 statement marking the start of Ramadan. And in a 2014 statement marking Eid, Obama said the holiday “also reminds us of the many achievements and contributions of Muslim Americans to building the very fabric of our nation and strengthening the core of our democracy.”
Yet experts label this attempted myth-making. As the Blaze reports, relating comments historian David Barton made on Glenn Beck’s radio program:
“In all the reading I’ve done, thousands of books, there’s nothing there [relating to Islamic contributions in early America],” Barton said on Friday. “I mean, we know that Muslims were the folks who captured the slaves sent to America, largely out of Africa…. The Muslims did the slave hunting and the slave trading, et cetera. The first Muslims came to America as a result of the Muslims capturing them and sending them to the Dutch traders.”
Note that the Muslim slave trade continues to this day. Frontpage Mag reported on the modern Arab child-slave trade in 2011, a phenomenon that saw what perhaps was its most brutal iteration hundreds of years ago when young African and European boys would be captured, castrated, and then sold into bondage by North African Muslims.
The reality is that Muslim contributions were rare in 19th-century America and not very consequential. Barton cited as an example the U.S. Army’s 1856 retaining of a Muslim to train camels for use in Indian wars in the Arizona desert; the effort was abandoned as the animals proved too slow to keep pace with the Indians.
Yet Muslims certainly are “woven” into our history, and they did help with the re-establishment of the U.S. Navy — by attacking American merchant vessels and enslaving and ransoming their crews.
The Islamic Barbary States of North Africa had long engaged in piracy, and their attacks on U.S. shipping in the late 18th century led to Congress’ 1794 authorization of the building of six naval vessels and the establishment of the Department of the Navy four years later. Interestingly, another myth peddled by Obama relates to this period.
While hosting a 2012 Iftar dinner at the White House, where Muslims break the Ramadan fast, Obama said to the attendees, “Thomas Jefferson once held a sunset dinner here with an envoy from Tunisia — perhaps the first Iftar at the White House, more than 200 years ago.” He then referenced Thomas Jefferson’s Koran and called it “a reminder, along with the generations of patriotic Muslims in America, that Islam … is part of our national story.”
But striking is what was left unsaid. The envoy was Tunisian emissary Sidi Soliman Mellimelli, who Jefferson hosted toward the end of the First Barbary War (1805) “in an attempt to bribe him into submission after the USS Constitution captured ships from the bey of Tunis,” as Breitbart’s Ben Shapiro puts it.
In reality, Jefferson did not have a rosy view of Islam and would be shocked by Obama’s revisionist history. Just consider what Jefferson reported was the answer when Tripoli’s envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman, was asked in 1785 why his people would “make war upon nations who had done them no injury”:
The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.
As Shapiro points out, John Quincy Adams emphasized this Islamic perspective when he wrote of the Tripolitan negotiations and stated:
The precept of the Koran is perpetual war against all who deny that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.
Shapiro then wrote, “Quincy Adams would later lament, ‘Such is the spirit, which governs the hearts of men, to whom treachery and violence are taught as principles of religion.’” Moreover, continued Shapiro, “Philosophers upon whom the founders relied had similarly negative views of Islam…. The historical record demonstrates that Islam had virtually no role in the foundation of the early Republic outside of being used as a negative comparison point for freedom and self-government.”
So was Islam woven into our country’s founding? It seems more like Obama was weaving a tangled web of a tall tale.
Photo of President Obama: AP Images
Freedom-Lovers of the World, Unite!
By J.B. Shurk
What is the single greatest threat to globalist tyranny? A moral and self-sufficient population capable of critical thinking and dedicated to the defense of individual liberty.
People who can distinguish between right and wrong do not require governments to safeguard their conscience. People who can provide for themselves and trade with others in free markets do not become addicted to government welfare. People who question authority and value objective truth are less inclined to be manipulated by government propaganda. People who recognize personal freedom as an inviolable right tend to possess the character and moral fortitude to resist coercion.
For the Marxist globalists advancing a technocratic new world order designed to elevate a privileged few over everyone else, the ideal human is spiritually confused, helpless, ignorant, and uncurious. Preying on those who are in desperate need of saving is how governments turn citizens into slaves.
In order to hasten the arrival of its planned dystopia, the one-world-government crowd depends on artificial constructs meant to nudge the masses into compliance. The “climate change” bugaboo is the mechanism used to replace free markets and private property with corporate oligarchs and central bankers who act as global economic managers tasked with “saving the planet.” The prospect of unending waves of new viral pandemics is the mechanism used to justify government coercion, lockdowns, mandates, and mass surveillance. Fraudulent allegations of racism, colonialism, imperialism, cultural supremacy, and privilege together form the mechanism that Marxist globalists (actual imperialists) use to mobilize mass migration, unleash cultural conflict, and keep otherwise peaceful populations in a vulnerable state of division, hostility, and social decay. Finally, governments’ open war on “disinformation” and all its variants (including the erroneous classifications of scientific debate as “misinformation” and public debate as “hate speech”) is the mechanism used to silence all criticism and dissent.
If unregulated “disinformation” were really the dangerous threat that governments pretend it to be, a reasonable person would expect to see dedicated public schools now teaching the kind of critical thinking skills necessary to arm every citizen with the requisite tools to combat the supposed monstrous surge in unsanctioned propaganda. From the beginning of an elementary school pupil’s education, rational argument would be distinguished from logical fallacy. Reason and rigorous investigation would be valued over emotional and subjective appeals to feelings. Not only would young students be taught to examine their presuppositions, but also they would be exhorted to question all appeals to authority. After all, authoritarians such as Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, and Hitler all ruled with an iron fist precisely because questioning their authority was forbidden. If governments were truly motivated by a fear of a future Hitler, they would counsel their youngest citizens from the earliest age: question everything!
Instead, we see no such intellectual preparation. Facts have been abandoned and replaced with “personal truths.” Historical events have been rewritten for nefarious political calculations (Remember Obama’s insistence that Muslims were instrumental to America’s founding?). Biological sex and other inconvenient scientific precepts have been jettisoned, so that mental delusions and State-enforced Lysenkoism can manipulate reality. Government educators demand that ideas be “politically correct.” Rhetorical combat has been forbidden out of a pusillanimous devotion to avoiding “hurt feelings.”
Freethinking and creative expression are now burdened with so many intrusive guardrails that more time is wasted divining what cannot be said out loud than is spent nurturing true genius and imagination. Math classes have replaced calculus with social grievance curricula and obsessions over systemic racism. Literary classics have been swapped with new age rubbish that demonizes Western civilization, while proselytizing a new “woke” religion devoted to multiculturalism, global warming, abortion, and gender fluidity.
In other words, childhood education has banished intellectual discernment from the classroom and is now hopelessly awash in fairytales, feelings, psychobabble, and other mind-numbingly stupid and spurious inanities.
How can any student prepare to combat a world supposedly rife with “disinformation” when government indoctrination is disguised as schoolwork and critical thinking is sacrificed on the altar of “politically correct” groupthink?
Asking the question suggests an obvious answer: governments are not worried about “disinformation” at all. What concerns them is competing points of view that challenge their monopoly over constructed “truths.” As the world’s foremost purveyors of propaganda, they fear the rise of any speakers not under their control. Governments’ fabricated war on “disinformation” is actually a war for the preservation of a filthy public sewer system that pumps out toxic “disinformation” daily.
Freethinkers armed with critical thinking skills are like intellectual plumbers capable of parsing governments’ sordid lies. Marxist globalism’s fetid sludge grows underground only if society lacks the good sense to understand what causes the foul-smelling putridness drifting beneath its own nose.
Government propaganda is nothing new. Concentrated power depends on institutional control over what is considered “true.” An open war on “disinformation,” though, suggests that the ground beneath our feet is shifting. What has changed? An unchartered and unregulated guild of intellectual plumbers has begun to make solid progress in unclogging governments’ propaganda-filled sewers, so that fresh truths can finally flow.
What do the political successes of Donald Trump in the United States, Javier Milei in Argentina, and Geert Wilders in the Netherlands represent if not a pivot away from the ruling globalists’ chokehold over institutional power and toward a fledgling cross-border movement for human liberty?
Perhaps the era has finally arrived to turn Marx on his head and implore: Freedom-lovers of the world, unite!
There is a clever political meme rumbling around online that breaks society into four groups of people:
(1) Those who believe the narrative and comply;
(2) Those who know it’s BS and comply anyway;
(3) Those who are waking up to the lie and are starting to refuse to comply; and
(4) Those who knew it was BS right from the start and refused to partake in the lie.
Those in category (4) represent a stubbornly consistent 20% of the population whose capacity for smelling BS and rejecting official “truths” runs high. Jim Quinn wrote an essay over at The Burning Platform highlighting Stanley Milgram’s consequential study that concluded, “80% of the population do not have the psychological or moral resources to defy an authority’s order, no matter how illegitimate the order is.”
Quinn surveys how Deep State propaganda, rampant fearmongering, and social media influence campaigns have only further dulled critical thinking skills in the sixty years since Milgram’s experiment and paints a depressing picture:
“The entire Covid scamdemic was a modern day Milgram Experiment and the vast majority of the world population were duped into believing the annual flu was such a horrific threat that they agreed to be locked down, lose their jobs, treat others like lepers, mask & distance, give their government unlimited authoritarian power, agree to censor and cancel critical thinking dissenters, and ultimately be injected with an untested, toxic, gene therapy that failed to combat covid, but certainly has caused millions of “sudden deaths”, turbo cancers, and myocarditis in young people.”
From Quinn’s perspective, “the clearly stolen 2020 presidential election” and the J6 “fake insurrection” further suggest, “the sheep obediently believe what the authorities spout.”
Given that only 14% of U.S. adults have grabbed the most recent COVID shot and strong majorities of the American people believe both that fraud tainted the 2020 election and that J6 prosecutions have amounted to targeted political persecution, I will suggest a more optimistic conclusion: the number of Americans who have moved from group (1) to group (3) is rapidly expanding. People are, indeed, “waking up” and refusing to comply.
Our goal, then, is straightforward: continue shaking group (1) awake from its interminable slumber until an overwhelming majority can isolate and eliminate group (2) from ever again exercising authority.
The government’s execrable war on “disinformation” proves how much it fears that we might be winning.
Image: Pashi via Pixabay, Pixabay License.
Iranian Militia Leader Leading Iraq U.S. Embassy Raid Listed as Obama White House Guest
LUCAS NOLAN
31 Dec 2019
Iranian militia leader Hadi al-Amiri, one of several identified as leading an attack on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad on Tuesday, reportedly visited the White House in 2011 during the presidency of Barack Obama.
On Tuesday, a mob in Baghdad attacked the U.S. embassy in retaliation against last weekend’s U.S. airstrikes against the Iran-backed Shiite militia Kataib Hezbollah (KH), responsible for killing an American civilian contractor. KH is one of a number of pro-Iran militias that make up the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF/PMU), which legally became a wing of the Iraqi military after fighting the Sunni Islamic State terrorist group.
President Donald Trump has since accused Iran of having “orchestrated” the embassy attack and stated that the government would be “held fully responsible.”
Breitbart News reporter John Hayward described the attack on the embassy, writing:
The mob grew into thousands of people, led by openly identified KH supporters, some of them wearing uniforms and waving militia flags. The attack began after a funeral service for the 25 KH fighters killed by the U.S. airstrikes. Demonstrators marched through the streets of Baghdad carrying photos of the slain KH members and Iraq’s top Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who condemned the American airstrikes.
KH vowed to seek revenge for the airstrikes on Monday. Both KH and the Iranian military unit that supports it, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), have been designated as terrorist organizations by the U.S. government. The government of Saudi Arabia also described KH as one of several “terrorist militias supported by the Iranian establishment” in remarks on Tuesday condemning the assault on the U.S. embassy.
The attackers were able to smash open a gate and push into the embassy compound, lighting fires, smashing cameras, and painting messages such as “Closed in the name of resistance” on the walls. Gunshots were reportedly heard near the embassy, while tear gas and stun grenades were deployed by its defenders.
A uniformed militia fighter on the scene in Baghdad told Kurdish news service Rudaw that attacks were also planned against the U.S. consulates in Erbil and Basra, with the goal of destroying the consulates and killing everyone inside.
The Washington Post reported Tuesday that among those agitating protesters in Baghdad on Tuesday was Hadi al-Amiri, a former transportation minister with close ties to Iran who leads the Badr Corps, another PMF militia.
In 2011, both Fox News and the Washington Times noted that then-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki brought his transportation minister, al-Amiri, to a meeting at the White House. The Times noted that the White House did not confirm his attendance, but the official was on Iraq’s listed members of its delegation.
The al-Amiri accompanying al-Maliki, besides also being transportation minister, was identified at the time as a commander of the Badr organization, further indicating it was the same person. At the time, the outlets expressed concern that al-Amiri had ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which the FBI has stated played a role in a 1996 terrorist attack that killed 19 U.S. servicemen. President Donald Trump designated the IRGC a foreign terrorist organization, the first time an official arm of a foreign state received the designation.
Fox News’ Ed Henry questioned White House Press Secretary Jay Carney following the visit about the attendance of al-Amiri at the White House. Carney refused to answer and stating that he would need to investigate the issue. The full transcript from RealClearPolitics reads:
Ed Henry, FOX News: When Prime Minister Maliki was here this week there have been reports that a former commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which U.S. officials say played a role in a 1996 terrorist attack that killed 19 U.S. servicemen.
He was here at the White House with Prime Minister Maliki because he’s a transportation minister, yeah, transportation minister —
Jay Carney, WH: Who’s [sic] report is that?
Henry: I believe the Washington Times has reported it. I think others have as well, but I think this is a Washington Times —
Carney: I have to take that question then, I’m not aware of it.
Henry: Can you just answer it later though, whether he was here and whether a background check had been done?
Carney: I’ll check on it for you.
Henry: Okay, thanks.
In 2016, Obama secured a deal with Iran which included a payment of $1.7 billion in cash. Breitbart News reporter John Hayward reported in September of 2016:
On Tuesday, the Obama administration finally admitted something its critics had long suspected: The entire $1.7 billion tribute paid to Iran was tendered in cash — not just the initial $400 million infamously shipped to the Iranians in a cargo plane — at the same moment four American hostages were released.
“Treasury Department spokeswoman Dawn Selak said in a statement the cash payments were necessary because of the ‘effectiveness of U.S. and international sanctions,’ which isolated Iran from the international finance system,” said ABC News, relating what might be one of history’s strangest humblebrags. The sanctions Obama threw away were working so well that he had to satisfy Iran’s demands with cold, hard cash!
By the way, those sanctions were not entirely related to Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. As former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy pointed out at National Review last month, they date back to Iran’s seizure of hostages at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, its support for “Hezbollah’s killing sprees,” and, most pertinently, Bill Clinton’s 1995 invocation of “federal laws that deal with national emergencies caused by foreign aggression,” by which he meant Iran’s support for international terrorism.
Former white house staffer during the Obama administration, Ben Rhodes, blamed President Trump’s policies for the Tuesday attack on the U.S. embassy.
Ben Rhodes
✔@brhodes
Trump sanctions on Iran have done nothing to change Iranian behavior except make it worse. This is what happens when your foreign policy is based on Obama envy, domestic politics, Saudi interests, and magical right wing thinking. https://twitter.com/amichaistein1/status/1211731826890412033 …
Amichai Stein
✔@AmichaiStein1
#BREAKING: US official tells me: New Iran-related sanctions will be announced "In the next 24 hours"
6,602
4:43 AM - Dec 31, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
3,802 people are talking about this
Many have hit back at Rhodes for the accusations, including former CIA ops officer Bryan Dean Wright.
Bryan Dean Wright
✔@BryanDeanWright
As you attack Trump’s foreign policy, Iranian militia members are — at this very moment — attacking American soldiers using the $1.7B cash you and Team Obama sent to Tehran.
What a time to be self righteous. https://twitter.com/brhodes/status/1211991305208905729 …
Ben Rhodes
✔@brhodes
Trump sanctions on Iran have done nothing to change Iranian behavior except make it worse. This is what happens when your foreign policy is based on Obama envy, domestic politics, Saudi interests, and magical right wing thinking. https://twitter.com/amichaistein1/status/1211731826890412033 …
5,888
5:09 AM - Dec 31, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
3,283 people are talking about this
No further information has been given about al-Amiri’s presence at the U.S. embassy raid on Tuesday. Read more about the attack on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad at Breitbart News here.
Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship. Follow him on Twitter @LucasNolan or email him at lnolan@breitbart.com
The Case for Impeaching Barack Obama
By Allen West | October 7, 2019
Yes, you read the title of this missive correctly.
As a career military officer, we never believed that you win on defense. During the constant, incessant, and insidious attacks on President Trump, I believe there should be a full-fledged attack to evidence the abject, utter hypocrisy of the progressive socialist left. If I were on any news program and was asked about the “impeachment inquiry” of President Trump, I would pivot and discuss the case for impeaching Barack Obama…and why the progressive socialist left defended his indefensible actions.
If in this current frenzy by the left and their media accomplices about Ukraine, the issue is about national security, I can counter that.
Early in 2009, Barack Obama traveled to Cairo, Egypt to deliver an address to the Muslim world. I have no issue with his wanting to have an outreach. But we should all agree that Obama’s requesting members of the Muslim Brotherhood to be in attendance, front and center, was ill advised. All one need to do is understand the history of the Muslim Brotherhood, the grandfather of modern-day Islamic jihadism.
This is the terrorist organization responsible for the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. Anyone can read the Muslim Brotherhood’s website and realize what their goals and objectives are, and they are not consistent with those of the United States. Yet, Barack Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood candidate for President, Mohammed Morsi, as he undermined the office of Hosni Mubarak. Sure, Mubarak was not the best, but he was not supportive of Islamic jihadism.
When Morsi won the election, quite questionably, it was Barack Obama who congratulated him and offered US support, to include military aid…to a Muslim Brotherhood backed president. The people of Egypt were indignant, and in the end, revolted against Morsi and overthrew him for a new President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. Barack Obama condemned Egypt and its so-called coup, threatening to cut off any US aid…which he was willing to supply to a Muslim Brotherhood backed government.
Second point, Barack Obama claimed that there was a major crisis in Libya and ended up outsourcing our military support and aid to Islamic jihadist organizations against President Muammar al-Gaddafi. There was evidence that Gaddafi was willing to negotiate his removal and departure from Libya, but instead, Obama supplied weapons, intelligence, and air support to Islamic terrorists who did overthrow, and execute, Gaddafi. Since when did the United States provide military aid to Islamic terrorists?
In the aftermath, the Obama administration attempted a weapons buy back program from these same jihadists. And that led to the debacle we came to know as Benghazi. Amazingly enough a US Ambassador, Chris Stevens, was brutally murdered and paraded in the streets, along with Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty during an Islamic terrorist attack. But where was our support to those brave men who fought off the attacks? Why was it that Barack Obama lied about this very sad day in US history, and was never held accountable and responsible? This was not about some anti-Islam video, which was the Obama talking point. And sadly, those four Americans who lost their lives, Barack Obama did not even send a US military aircraft to retrieve their remains.
Third point in the case for impeaching Barack Hussein Obama, the off-mike comment by Obama to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. Yes, remember when Obama whispered, “tell Vladmir that after my reelection I will have more flexibility”. It was 2012 and no one dared ask of President Obama, that is from the left, what was meant by flexibility? Here was a sitting US President making overt guarantees to Russia. Funny thing, when Obama was in office Russia was not this enemy, dark specter, matter of fact, the Obama administration offered a “reset button” to Russia. Recall in the final presidential debate between Obama and Mitt Romney how Obama chastised and ridiculed Romney on his assertion that Russia was our number one geopolitical threat? Obama said to Romney that the 80s was calling for their foreign policy back, now the progressive socialist left runs around screaming Russia, Russia, Russia ad nauseum.
When Russia was overrunning Ukraine, and Ukraine asked the Obama administration for support, Obama sent socks and MREs. President Trump has sent A-10s and increased military support to include increased military to military training and cooperation in the Baltic States and Poland. And somehow, we are being told by Nancy Pelosi that we must impeach President Trump for threatening national security and our foreign policy?
Lastly, Iran is the number one state sponsor of Islamic terrorism. Why then did Barack Obama sent pallets of laundered cash in a blacked out unmarked plane to Iran? And no, it had nothing to do with past weapons deals, those deals, agreements, had been made with the Iranian Republic when the Shah of Iran was the leader. When the Shah was deposed by the Ayatollah Khomeini, that agreement was null and void. Several US Presidents, Republican and Democrat, had not sent cash to Iran, until Obama. That was, and is, a violation of US Code, Statute, in aiding and abetting the enemy, which Iran used the funds to advance its terrorist support, especially to its proxy army, Hezbollah.
As well, why was it that Obama did not bring the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the Iranian nuclear agreement, before the US Senate as a treaty for ratification? Instead he made it a unilateral executive decision, which is in violation of our US Constitution. There was nothing said about impeaching Obama, but I am saying it now.
I am tired of Republicans playing right into the traps, games, of the progressive socialist left, instead of putting them on defense. I would love to have someone, anyone, ask of Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Jerrold Nadler, and Rashida Tlaib, who wants to use US Marshals to remove Trump administration officials from office, to answer these points I have presented.
The progressive socialist left is mad that they lost the 2016 presidential election. They realize that, as Rep. Al Green said, they will probably not be able to defeat President Trump at the ballot box, unless they use tricks like ballot harvesting. So, what it their only recourse, the Banana Republic, kangaroo court tactics of using impeachment as a political weapon...this is nothing more than an unsophisticated coup.
The case for impeaching Barack Obama was easy, yet the left and their propagandized media dismissed it. Let’s stop allowing the progressive socialist left to dominate the narrative, it is time to put them on defense.
(Allen West is a retired Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army. Mr. West is a Senior Fellow at the Media Research Center, supporting its mission to expose and neutralize liberal media bias. Mr. West also writes daily commentary on his personal website theoldschoolpatriot.com)
Pollak: Everything Joe Biden Said About Donald Trump’s Foreign Policy Actually Describes Barack Obama’s
JOEL B. POLLAK
12 Jul 2019
Everything former vice president Joe Biden said about President Donald Trump’s foreign policy speech on Thursday actually applies to the policy that Biden carried out together with former President Barack Obama — and not Trump.
In his speech, at City University of New York, Biden called Trump an “extreme” threat to the country’s national security. No one has yet taken Biden to task for describing the sitting commander-in-chief in such alarmist terms.
But that wasn’t even the most bizarre aspect of Biden’s speech. He said the main problem in Trump’s foreign policy was … Charlottesville, Virginia. Biden went on to recite a version of the debunked “very fine people” hoax, claiming that Trump had drawn a “moral equivalence between those who promoted hate and those who opposed it.” That, he said, was a threat to America’s mission of standing for democratic values in the world.
But in fact, Trump specifically condemned the neo-Nazis in Charlottesville on multiple occasions. The entire premise of Biden’s speech was a lie.
Biden went on to claim that Trump’s foreign policy rejects democratic values and favors the rise of authoritarianism worldwide. He cited Trump’s warmth to Russian president Vladimir Putin and North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un. And he claimed that Trump has undermined America’s alliances with democracies in favor of flattery from dictators.
Apparently Biden forgot that Obama literally bowed to the Saudi king; that he abandoned the pro-democracy protests during the Green Revolution in Iran; that he pushed for a “reset” with Russia and abandoned our Czech and Polish allies on missile defense; that he promised Putin he would be even more “flexible” after he won re-election; that he tried to normalize relations with the Cuban dictatorship without securing any democratic reforms there; that he gave the store away to the communist dictatorship in China; and that he abandoned Israel, a betrayal in which Biden himself played a direct and shameful role, condemning Israel for building apartments in a Jewish neighborhood of Jerusalem.
Trump praises dictators as a negotiating tactic; Obama praised them because he, too, thought America was a problem.
One of the few times the Obama administration embraced democratic change was during the Arab Spring, when “democracy” meant the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood — which had no interest in freedom, only in power.
In 2008, the Obama campaign cast Biden as a foreign policy guru, though he had been wrong on almost every foreign policy issue in his career. On Thursday, he mostly ignored his own record.
Astonishingly, Biden claimed credit for Trump’s success in crushing the so-called “Islamic State,” saying he worked with Obama “to craft the military and diplomatic campaign that ultimately defeated ISIS.” In fact, Biden was complicit in the rise of ISIS. He was Obama’s point man on Iraq when the U.S. suddenly pulled out of the country, leaving a vacuum that ISIS filled. He did not object when Obama called the terror group “junior varsity.”
Biden offered nothing new in terms of solutions to current foreign policy challenges. He claimed that the Iran nuclear deal had been a success — on the very day Iran was reportedto have been cheating all along. He said the U.S. should re-enter the deal once Iran did, offering no idea how to ensure that it did so. On North Korea, Biden promised he would “empower our negotiators,” whatever that means.
He said that he would get “tough” with China, which Trump is already doing (and which Biden previously suggested he would not do). And on immigration, he ridiculed the very idea of borders — literally: “I respect no borders.”
And this is the best Democrats have on foreign policy.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He earned an A.B. in Social Studies and Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.
No comments:
Post a Comment