Reader. Writer. Thinker. Commentator. Truth Seeker.

Category: Defense (Page 2 of 5)

Watcher of Weasels Honorable Mention: Jihad Versus Terrorism

For my piece on why using “terrorism” instead of “jihadism” is such a consequential error, I received an honorable mention from the essential Watcher’s Council.

Read their round-up of exceptional writings for the week of November 18th here.

Using the Term ‘Terrorist’ to Describe Jihadis Aids and Abets Their Cause

In the wake of the Paris attacks, it is vital to acknowledge that 14 years after 9/11, even the lexicon we use in connection with the slow-motion global jihad continues to be fatally flawed.

Lack of clarity and precision in terminology and definitions indicates a lack of cogency in our own minds; as it pertains to our understanding of the Islamic supremacist enemy — never referred to by our “leaders” as such — incoherence portends failure with respect to defending America against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Take our use of the word “terrorist” for example. I would submit that this term in and of itself misclassifies the enemy, and in effect serves its efforts by witting or unwitting obfuscation.

Terrorism is a tactic; the enemy properly defined consists of adherents to an Islamic supremacist, theopolitical ideology — that is, self-described jihadists. As others have noted, in World War II we did not refer to our enemy as “the blitzkrieg.”

Further, “terrorist” is just a marginally less politically correct term than “violent extremists,” but it similarly lumps animal rights nuts with sophisticated jihadi operatives. By painting with such a broad brush, we in turn dilute the perceived dangerousness of our mortal foe.

As such, the very name “War on Terror” is inapt.

This means of course that our foreign policy Establishment has failed the American people on a bipartisan basis.

How we counterjihadists make this clear to the public after 14 years of mendacious messaging is a monumental challenge as we think about how to turn the tide.

FOR USE AS DESIRED, YEAR END PHOTOS - FILE - Secretary of State Hillary Rodham testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 23, 2013, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the deadly September attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.  (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File)

The Unredacted Huma Abedin-Hillary Clinton Email on Libya, Weapons and Former Rep. Mike Rogers

In working through some of the 7,000 Hillary Clinton emails released by the State Department yesterday, I came across one curious one sent from aide Huma Abedin to the then-Secretary of State regarding a Koran-burning in the U.S.

Here is another intriguing email:

It is noteworthy that this message on a sensitive subject — presumably about a meeting between then-Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) and Sec. of State Clinton on weapons collections in Libya — would be left unredacted, while many other emails in the Clinton trove are redacted in toto.

This may be because news reports around the September 10, 2011 email date indicate that Rep. Rogers, former Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, was concerned that weapons including anti-aircraft missiles could get into the “hands of bad actors” in the wake of the fall of former Prime Minister Muammar Gaddafi.

Read More

Flickr/U.S. Department of Defense

ISIS Isn’t Winning So Much as America Is Mentally Defeated

In an age of victimology, moral relativism and a supreme lack of confidence in Western Civilization, you get comments like this from senior military officials:

“In testimony on Capitol Hill this year, Lt. Gen. Vincent R. Stewart, the [Defense Intelligence] agency’s director, said sending ground troops back into Iraq risked transforming the conflict into one between the West and ISIS, which would be ‘the best propaganda victory that we could give.'”

Lt. Gen. Stewart’s statement fittingly comes from the Times’ exposé on the alleged politicization of intelligence estimates regarding our nation’s supposed military campaign against ISIS in Iraq.

The half-hearted effort against ISIS as dictated by President Obama — more political than substantive in nature — is a symptom of which Stewart’s demoralized mindset is part of the cause.

We are in a war in which Islamic supremacists are and have been fighting infidels worldwide for multiple decades, while the infidels cower.

We do not need to transform any conflict into one between the West and jihadists because the jihadists have already defined their war with us as such.

We are losing today to ISIS and to Islamic supremacism more broadly not so much because we lack the capability to destroy them

Read More


No Worries, the Would-Be French Train Terrorist’s Mosque Wasn’t Radical…Women Can Pray There

In the wake of the courageous takedown of a would-be (likely) jihadist on a Paris-bound train by three Americans, the New York Times published a piece on the Spanish mosque to which Ayoub El Khazzani belonged.

I think the following excerpt speaks for itself:

But while the authorities point to the mosque as a crucial part of Mr. Khazzani’s transformation from onetime petty hashish dealer to someone suspected of being a radical, Mr. Mohamed Ahmed said the preaching here was not to blame.

“Women are also allowed to pray here,” he said, “which certainly wouldn’t happen if this was a radical place.”

Methinks that Mr. Mohamed Ahmed is lacking in self-awareness.

Ahmed’s defense of Khazzani is perhaps even better:

Read More

U.S. President Barack Obama is flanked by Vice President Joe Biden (L) and Secretary of State John Kerry (R) as he delivers a statement on legislation sent to Congress to authorize the use of military force against the Islamic State, from the Roosevelt Room at the White House in Washington February 11, 2015. Obama asked Congress on Wednesday to authorize military force against Islamic State that would bar any large-scale invasion by U.S. ground troops and limit operations to three years.  REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst    (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS MILITARY CONFLICT TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY) - RTR4P811

The Ignored Influence of the Iran Lobby on Obama’s Useful Idiots

The incomparable Daniel Greenfield has the story:

Both of Obama’s secretaries of state were involved in Iran Lobby cash controversies, as was his vice president and his former secretary of defense. Obama was also the beneficiary of sizable donations from the Iran Lobby. Akbar Ghahary, the former co-founder of IAPAC, had donated and raised some $50,000 for Obama.

It’s an unprecedented track record that has received very little notice. While the so-called “Israel Lobby” is constantly scrutinized, the fact that key foreign policy positions under Obama are controlled by political figures with troubling ties to an enemy of this country has gone mostly unreported by the mainstream media.

This culture of silence allowed the Iran Lobby to get away with taking out a full-page ad in the New York Times before the Netanyahu speech asking, “Will Congress side with our President or a Foreign Leader?”

Iran’s stooges had taken a break from lobbying for ballistic missiles to play American patriots.

Obama and his allies, Iranian and domestic, have accused opponents of his dirty Iran deal of making “common cause” with that same terror regime and of treason. The ugly truth is that he and his political accomplices were the traitors all along.

Democrats in favor of a deal that will let a terrorist regime go nuclear have taken money from lobbies for that regime. They have broken their oath by taking bribes from a regime whose leaders chant, “Death to America”. Their pretense of examining the deal is nothing more than a hollow charade.

This deal has come down from Iran Lobby influenced politicians like Kerry and is being waved through by members of Congress who have taken money from the Iran Lobby. That is treason plain and simple.

Despite what we are told about its “moderate” leaders, Iran considers itself to be in a state of war with us. Iran and its agents have repeatedly carried out attacks against American soldiers, abducted and tortured to death American officials and have even engaged in attacks on American naval vessels.

Aiding an enemy state in developing nuclear weapons is the worst form of treason imaginable. Helping put weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists is the gravest of crimes.

The Democrats who have approved this deal are turning their party into a party of atom bomb spies.

Those politicians who have taken money from the Iran Lobby and are signing off on a deal that will let Iran go nuclear have engaged in the worst form of treason and committed the gravest of crimes. They must know that they will be held accountable. That when Iran detonates its first bomb, their names will be on it.

But will the Democrats who lavished the world’s largest state sponsor of jihad with billions of dollars, provided cover for its nuclear activities and spat in the eyes of America’s servicemen and women maimed and murdered by Iran and its proxies, along with the craven Republicans who willfully engaged in failure theater, actually pay a price for their treason?


Featured Image Source: PBS.

99 Things Worth Reading Every Day If You Possibly Could

One question I get asked frequently by friends and colleagues is, “What do you read?”

Without fail, this leaves me fumbling for my phone as I pull up my RSS feeds on Feedly — perhaps a good reflection of the fact that we care more about content these days than brands, plus are incapable of memorizing anything thanks to the moral hazard of smartphones.

Instead of fumbling, I have decided to compile some of my favorite sources into one post that from this point forward I can easily share.

Here are the sources:


1) Ben Domenech’s The Transom
2) Jim Geraghty’s Morning Jolt
3) Matt Levine’s Money Stuff
4) Omri Ceren’s Email Distribution


1) Abnormal Returns
2) Ace of Spades HQ
3) Algemeiner
4) Althouse
5) American Thinker
6) Andy McCarthy
7) Ann Coulter
8) Breitbart
9) Business Insider
10) Cafe Hayek
11) Caroline Glick
12) Commentary Magazine
13) Conservative Review
14) ConservativeHQ
15) Daniel Greenfield (FrontpageSultan Knish)
16) Debkafile
17) Diana West
18) Drudge
19) Eli Lake
20) FiveThirtyEight
21) Free Banking
22) Free Republic
23) FT Alphaville
24) Gates of Vienna
25) Gatestone Institute
26) Gateway Pundit
27) Gavin McInnes
28) George F. Will
29) Ginni Thomas
30) Hot Air
31) Instapundit
32) Jeffrey Lord
33) Jihad Watch
34) Johnson’s Russia List
35) Josh Rogin
36) Judicial Watch
37) Kurt Schlichter
38) Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion
40) Melanie Phillips
42) Michelle Malkin
43) Monica Crowley
44) Mosaic Magazine
45) National Review Online
46) New York Sun
47) New York Times Editorial Page
48) New York Times Upshot
49) Noisyroom
50) Pajamas Media
51) Patrick Poole
52) Patterico’s Pontifications
53) POLITICO Magazine
54) Powerline
55) RealClear Books
56) RealClear Markets
57) RealClearPolitics
58) Reason Magazine
59) RedState
60) Richard Epstein
61) Roger Kimball
62) Seeking Alpha
63) Small Wars Journal
64) Spengler
65) Steve Coughlin
66) SteynOnline
67) Tablet Magazine
68) The Altucher Confidential
69) The Big Picture
70) The Daily Caller
71) The Daily Reckoning
72) The Daily Signal
73) The Federalist
74) The Freeman
75) The Hill
76) The Long War Journal
77) The Pragmatic Capitalist
78) The Reformed Broker
79) The Times of Israel
80) The Volokh Conspiracy
81) The Washington Times
82) The Weekly Standard
83) The XX Committee
84) TheBlaze
85) Thomas Sowell
86) Townhall
87) TrevorLoudon
88) Truth Revolt
89) Twitchy
90) Wall Street Journal Editorial Page
91) Walter E. Williams
92) Washington Examiner
93) Washington Free Beacon
94) Watchdog.Org
95) Zero Hedge
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, left, and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif at U.N. headquarters Thursday. (Jason DeCrow/AP)

If Jews Are ‘Emotional’ About the Iran Deal, Then What Does That Make the Obama Administration?

Kerry: Let me put this in very precise terms. Look, I’ve gone through this backwards and forwards a hundred times and I’m telling you, this deal is as pro-Israel, as pro-Israel’s security, as it gets. And I believe that just saying no to this is, in fact, reckless.

Goldberg: So why do you think you can’t convince the majority of Israelis, or the majority of the organized Jewish community, of this?

Kerry: Because there’s a huge level of fear and mistrust and, frankly, there’s an inherent sense that, given Iran’s gains and avoidance in the past, that somehow they’re going to avoid something again. It’s a visceral feeling, it’s very emotional and visceral and I’m very in tune with that and very sensitive to that. – John Kerry’s Interview With Jeffrey Goldberg for The Atlantic

So just to be clear, Secretary of State Kerry and the Obama administration have cut a deal in which Iran will be subjected to no inspections, no disclosures, no verification and no sanctions, that will equip the world’s leading state sponsor of terror with billions of dollars, and requires that the U.S. help protect its nuclear infrastructure, among many other travesties, but Secretary of State Kerry believes that critical Israelis in particular and Jews in general are responding “emotionally,” as opposed to rationally with fear and loathing?

Contrast the reaction of Jews, Christians and others who comprise the majority of Americans who oppose the Iran Deal with the Obama administration that claims that its political opponents are siding with Iran’s “hardliners” — that is, the mullahs to whom President Obama has not only capitulated but in effect made common cause.

In a parade of horribles chronicled in a powerful editorial in the Jewish magazine Tablet (no enemy of President Obama mind you), the publication’s Editors write:

Read More

Brad Thor Talks “Code of Conduct,” Islamic Supremacism vs. the West and Rick Perry 2016

Full Interview

Read More

Former Fed Prosecutor Andrew McCarthy on Islam and Free Speech, the Patriot Act and Foreign Policy

Full Interview

Read More

Page 2 of 5

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén