My brilliant friend Andrew Bostom whose must read new book will appear very soon reminded me this morning (at 6:30 A.M.) that the Arab uprisings in Lybia, Yemen and Egypt are policy issues owned strictly by our President.

This crisis is one you can’t blame on George Bush or anyone else by any stretch of imagination. Obama’s obsequious outreach to the Moslem world and the uprisings and subsequent rise of Islamic Jihadists in power (it is not only the Boyz in the Moslem Brotherhood Terrorhood) all occurred under this President’s watch.

And, how fitting that Bill Clinton addressed the Democratic Convention. As we watch in horror our Ambassador’s body dragged through the streets and Obama’s late and lame response, we are reminded of Bill Clinton’s craven response when in Mogadishu in 1993 an American soldier’s body was dragged through the streets by a savage crowd.

In October of 1993, Clinton sent United States Rangers and Special Forces to stabilize Somalia. His plan, presented to Congress with a timetable, was “to conclude our role there honorably but we do not want to see a reversion to the absolute chaos and the terrible misery which existed before.” His words came back to bite him. Subsequent investigations disclosed that U.S. soldiers on the ground were left without armed vehicles or sufficient firepower from the air. The Clinton administration and then Secretary of Defense, the late Les Aspin, repeatedly denied the Special ops teams’ and the Rangers’ requests for more armored vehicles, AC-130 gunships and tanks.

The American public witnessed gruesome televised scenes of rampaging Muslim Somalis dragging and desecrating the bodies of American troops. Congress demanded a withdrawal and Clinton did a “cut and run” operation leaving Somalia in worse shape than ever and Aidid unbowed. The end result was the perception that America can be defied by any rag tag army of terrorists.

Sound familiar?

RICH LOWRY: ROMNEY WAS RIGHT! When a U.S. embassy gets stormed by protesters overseas, it’s usually a matter of public concern. And it might even occasion debate between presidential candidates. Unless one of the candidates is President Barack Obama and the other is Mitt Romney. Then, everything changes. In the immediate aftermath of the deadly attacks on U.S. diplomatic […]


There are two positions one can take regarding the Iranian nuclear program: (a) it doesn’t matter, we can deter them, or (b) it does matter, we must stop them.

In my view, the first position — that we can contain Iran as we did the Soviet Union — is totally wrong, a product of wishful thinking and misread history. But at least it’s internally coherent.

What is incoherent is President Obama’s position. He declares the Iranian program intolerable — “I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon” — yet stands by as Iran rapidly approaches nuclearization.

A policy so incoherent, so knowingly and obviously contradictory, is a declaration of weakness and passivity. And this, as Anthony Cordesman, James Phillips, and others have argued, can increase the chance of war. It creates, writes Cordesman, “the same conditions that helped trigger World War II — years of negotiations and threats, where the threats failed to be taken seriously until war became all too real.”

This has precipitated the current U.S.-Israeli crisis, sharpened by the president’s rebuff of the Israeli prime minister’s request for a meeting during his upcoming U.S. visit. Ominous new developments; no Obama response. Alarm bells going off everywhere; Obama plays deaf.

The old arguments, old excuses, old pretensions have become ridiculous:

CLARE LOPEZ: ARAB SPRING EXPLODES IN ATTACKS AGAINST AMERICA As Americans everywhere remembered the attacks of September 11, 2001 today, in Cairo, Egypt, they stormed the U.S. Embassy and penetrated the perimeter. They ripped down the American flag, tore it to bits, and burned the pieces. Shouting “[w]e will sacrifice ourselves for you, Allah’s messenger!” the crowds then ran up the black flag […]

PETER BROOKES: NO TIME FOR US PASSIVITY While details trickle in on the troubling and tragic events involving our diplomatic missions in Cairo and Benghazi on Tuesday, one thing is certain: America remains in the cross-hairs of violent Islamist extremists. So much for the liberalizing effects of the Arab Spring. Unfortunately, some of the Islamist forces (including, potentially, terror groups) that […]


A recent article in Frontpagemag, “Muslims Have More DNC Delegates than Montana, Utah and Oklahoma Put Together” listed some very interesting stats:

Number of delegates for the Great State of Oklahoma – 50

Number of delegates for the Great State of Utah – 34

Number of delegates for the Great State of Montana- 31

Number of delegates for the Great State of Vermont – 27

Number of delegates for the Great State of Nevada – 44

Number of delegates for the Great State of Iowa – 65

Number of Muslim delegates – 100

The statement that there are 100 Muslim delegates comes from CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) and can be found in an article that was published by the Washington Post on September 5, 2012,

The number of Muslim delegates attending the Democratic National Convention has quadrupled since 2004, according to a Muslim advocacy group.

The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations counts more than 100 Muslim delegates representing some 20 states at the Democratic convention in Charlotte, N.C., this week. That’s up from 25 delegates in 2004, according to CAIR.

The Washington Post article continued with a quote from Robert McCaw,

CAIR government affairs coordinator Robert McCaw said the numbers were “a sign of the American Muslim community’s growing civic engagement and acceptance in the Democratic Party.” He also said that Democrats had targeted outreach to American Muslims.

The statement, “the numbers were a sign of the American Muslim community’s growing civic engagement and acceptance” reminded me of one specific part of the Muslim Brotherhood plan known as “The Project” and I decided that it was time to revisit it given the upcoming elections and world events.

The document, known in counterterrorism circles as “The Project”, was recovered in a raid by Swiss authorities in November 2001, just two months after 9/11. The 14-page plan written in Arabic and dated December 1, 1982, outlines a 12-point strategy to “establish an Islamic government on earth” – identified as The Project.

The following points are among the many recommendations made in “The Project”,

Networking and coordinating actions between likeminded Islamist organizations;
Avoiding open alliances with known terrorist organizations and individuals to maintain the appearance of “moderation”;
Infiltrating and taking over existing Muslim organizations to realign them towards the Muslim Brotherhood’s collective goals;
Using deception to mask the intended goals of Islamist actions, as long as it doesn’t conflict with shari’a law;
Avoiding social conflicts with Westerners locally, nationally or globally, that might damage the long-term ability to expand the Islamist powerbase in the West or provoke a lash back against Muslims;
Establishing financial networks to fund the work of conversion of the West, including the support of full-time administrators and workers;
Conducting surveillance, obtaining data, and establishing collection and data storage capabilities;
Putting into place a watchdog system for monitoring Western media to warn Muslims of “international plots fomented against them”;
Cultivating an Islamist intellectual community, including the establishment of think-tanks and advocacy groups, and publishing “academic” studies, to legitimize Islamist positions and to chronicle the history of Islamist movements;
Developing a comprehensive 100-year plan to advance Islamist ideology throughout the world;
Balancing international objectives with local flexibility;
Building extensive social networks of schools, hospitals and charitable organizations dedicated to Islamist ideals so that contact with the movement for Muslims in the West is constant;
Involving ideologically committed Muslims in democratically-elected institutions on all levels in the West, including government, NGOs, private organizations and labor unions;
Instrumentally using existing Western institutions until they can be converted and put into service of Islam;
Drafting Islamic constitutions, laws and policies for eventual implementation;
Avoiding conflict within the Islamist movements on all levels, including the development of processes for conflict resolution;
Instituting alliances with Western “progressive” organizations that share similar goals;
Creating autonomous “security forces” to protect Muslims in the West;
Inflaming violence and keeping Muslims living in the West “in a jihad frame of mind”;
Supporting jihad movements across the Muslim world through preaching, propaganda, personnel, funding, and technical and operational support;
Making the Palestinian cause a global wedge issue for Muslims;
Adopting the total liberation of Palestine from Israel and the creation of an Islamic state as a keystone in the plan for global Islamic domination;
Instigating a constant campaign to incite hatred by Muslims against Jews and rejecting any discussions of conciliation or coexistence with them;
Actively creating jihad terror cells within Palestine;
Linking the terrorist activities in Palestine with the global terror movement;
Collecting sufficient funds to indefinitely perpetuate and support jihad around the world;

What reminded me of the “Project” was the CAIR comment about the 100 plus Muslim delegates. One of the specific goals that the “Project” has, as noted above,

Involving ideologically committed Muslims in democratically-elected institutions on all levels in the West, including government, NGOs, private organizations and labor unions

As the saying goes, “it’s right out of the (Muslim Brotherhood) playbook”.

This is no coincidence, nor does it just happen to be a group of patriotic American Muslims. I have yet meet or hear any Muslim here in America refer to themselves as a “American Muslim” as opposed to a “Muslim American”.

Interestingly, until post 9/11 Muslims were overwhelmingly Republican. According to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), 78 percent of Muslims voted Republican in 2000.

The switch to the Democratic Party by an overwhelming number of Muslims is simple… It is the same party that wants to stifle religion yet backs the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) on Resolution 16/18 on issues of freedom of religion and speech. In other words: making it a criminal offense to speak negatively on Islam or Muslims.

OBAMA THE SPOKESMODEL FOR TYRANNY: STELLA PAUL Barack Obama is not a real president, though he does play one on TV. So what is he? It’s my contention that the bizarre creature currently residing in the White House is sponsored by America’s mortal foes to serve as an attractive spokesmodel for our destruction. The time for politely mincing words is over. […]


“President Obama, an avid golfer, doesn’t even show up for many of his regular intelligence briefings. His fans suggest the president is able to fully absorb the daily terrorist threat matrix by osmosis.As Election Day draws nearer, now Governor Romney will be given daily intelligence briefings.Chances are he’ll show up.”

Although the Obama administration had “credible” evidence of this week’s deadly Islamist attacks on U.S. missions in Libya and Egypt a full two days before they happened, no effort was made to protect U.S. government personnel, The Independent reports.

The Islamofascist offensive took place on September 11, a day of great symbolic importance to both America and the Islamic world because it was the eleventh anniversary of al Qaeda’s attacks on the World Trader Center and the Pentagon. The U.S. media, of course, seems barely aware of this symbolism because it has been focused laser-like on savagely attacking President Obama’s opponent, Republican Mitt Romney, for daring to criticize Obama’s foreign policy.

Senior diplomatic sources told the British newspaper that “the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and ‘lockdown’, under which movement is severely restricted.”

Unfortunately, there’s much more bad news. Important secret papers are missing from the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and refuges for U.S. personnel across that recently liberated North African nation are no longer considered “safe.”

The AWOL documents are sensitive enough to make Julian Assange salivate.

Revealed: inside story of US envoy’s assassination Kim Sengupta

The killings of the US ambassador to Libya and three of his staff were likely to have been the result of a serious and continuing security breach, The Independent can reveal.

American officials believe the attack was planned, but Chris Stevens had been back in the country only a short while and the details of his visit to Benghazi, where he and his staff died, were meant to be confidential.

The US administration is now facing a crisis in Libya. Sensitive documents have gone missing from the consulate in Benghazi and the supposedly secret location of the “safe house” in the city, where the staff had retreated, came under sustained mortar attack. Other such refuges across the country are no longer deemed “safe”.

Some of the missing papers from the consulate are said to list names of Libyans who are working with Americans, putting them potentially at risk from extremist groups, while some of the other documents are said to relate to oil contracts.

According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and “lockdown”, under which movement is severely restricted.

Mr Stevens had been on a visit to Germany, Austria and Sweden and had just returned to Libya when the Benghazi trip took place with the US embassy’s security staff deciding that the trip could be undertaken safely.

Eight Americans, some from the military, were wounded in the attack which claimed the lives of Mr Stevens, Sean Smith, an information officer, and two US Marines. All staff from Benghazi have now been moved to the capital, Tripoli, and those whose work is deemed to be non-essential may be flown out of Libya.

In the meantime a Marine Corps FAST Anti-Terrorism Reaction Team has already arrived in the country from a base in Spain and other personnel are believed to be on the way. Additional units have been put on standby to move to other states where their presence may be needed in the outbreak of anti-American fury triggered by publicity about a film which demeaned the Prophet Mohamed.

9/11 a Prequel? Next Attack on America in Works (Part II) by PAUL L. WILLIAMS, PHD Part I : Eleven Years after 9/11, the Threat Remains: The Leading Al Qaeda Operative Remains at Large Think 9/11 was a thing of the past? Think that you’re safe and secure. Think again.Meet Adnan el-Shukrijumah. He’s a chameleon. Adnan el-Shukrijumah possesses an uncanny ability to blend into a crowd, to alter his looks, […]