Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review cheer Hawaii Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard for once again scolding President Obama to identify radical Islam as the primary terrorist threat we face right now. We also fire back as Jeb Bush says he doesn’t understand why people are worried about the NSA infringing upon their civil liberties. And they react to Illinois Rep. Luis Gutierrez vowing to whip up immigrant “militancy” in response to a federal judge blocking Pres. Obama’s amnesty and many Republicans cheering the ruling.
‘This Is Embarrassing It’s So Ridiculous’
Attorney General Eric Holder says defining the largest terrorist threat to the U.S. and the West as Islamic extremism is insignificant compared to what we’re doing about it. State Department Spokeswoman Marie Harf is doubling down on her contention that poverty is the greatest trigger violent extremism, and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton says both comments only sow confusion and weaken the effort to destroy our enemies.
On Tuesday, as the Obama administration kicked off a three-day summit on combating violent extremism, Holder spoke at the National Press Club. One of the questions following his speech asked the attorney general to explain why the administration was reluctant to refer to the motivation of ISIS as radical Islam or Islamic extremism.
“I’m not sure an awful lot is gained by saying that. It doesn’t have any impact on our military posture,” said Holder. “I don’t worry an awful lot about what the appropriate terminology ought to be. I think people need to think about that. Really? We’re having this conversation about words as opposed to what our actions ought to be?”
Bolton says that line of thinking comes as no surprise.
“I think it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the threat that we face but it’s been a misunderstanding that they’ve had for six straight years,” said Bolton. “The president said back in the 2008 campaign that he considered terrorism to be a law enforcement matter, something we could handle by arresting terrorists and trying them in federal court.”
While he believes Holder and Obama think they’re helping their cause by supposedly respecting Muslim sensibilities, Bolton says they’re really just guaranteeing that terrorist threats will get stronger.
“[Obama] doesn’t treat it as a war. He doesn’t want to acknowledge that the threat is much graver than sort of robbing the local drug store, except a little bit more serious,” he said. “I think this whole approach guarantees, in effect, that the terrorist threat will continue to be with us for a long time and even grow. They’re the ones that are waging the war. They know what they are. They think they’re Islamic.”
Furthermore, Bolton says the Obama refusal to get specific hurts non-radical Muslims the most.
“The people who are the most significant victims of this kind of terrorism have been other Muslims. It really is hiding your head in the sand to think that by avoiding calling is Islamist radicalism or whatever term you like, but by simply using euphemisms, that somehow that’s going to make a difference,” said Bolton.
He says last week’s U.S. evacuation of Yemen is a perfect example of the inevitable consequence of weak U.S. action at a time of crisis.
“It’s a symbol of the decline of American influence, of the country spinning out of control, of both the Houthis and [Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula] now having Yemen as a base of operations. It’s a reflection of the failure of the whole Obama administration terrorist strategy. What he once called an example of the success of his strategy has turned into a debacle,” said Bolton.
But how would clearer terminology make a difference? How would labeling terrorists as Islamic radicals hasten their destruction. Bolton says it would make two big differences. The first is on the international stage.
“I think you can help build international coalitions more readily if people understand what they’re facing. I don’t think in the Arab or the larger Muslim world there’s any misunderstanding of what the nature of this threat is. In a way, it’s patronizing to Muslims to act as though they are somehow completely homogeneous in their thinking that they’ll be insulted by describing this threat for what it is,” said Bolton.
The former UN ambassador also says clarity helps to galvanize Americans toward a common goal.
“I think it’s also important domestically so that Americans understand we’re not opposing an abstraction known as terrorism, nor are we opposing terrorism in every single manifestation. We don’t care about what’s left of Irish Republican Army terrorism. We’re not concerned about the Basque separatists in Spain and France. The terrorist threat that the U.S. and the West as a whole face is very specific and if you can’t describe it , people can’t get their arms around the steps that will be necessary to eliminate that threat,” said Bolton.
Holder’s comments came just one day after State Department Spokeswoman Marie Harf told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews that addressing poverty was a larger goal than killing terrorists.
“We cannot win this war by killing them. We cannot kill our way out of this war. We need in the medium and longer term to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it’s lack of opportunity for jobs,” said Harf. “We can work with countries around the world to help improve their governance. We can help them build their economies, so they can have job opportunities for these people.”
Bolton rips Harf’s assessment as a juvenile perspective on how the world operates.
“This is embarrassing it’s so ridiculous, but it reflects the ideology of the left, what Karl Marx called economic determinism, that everything in the world is caused by economics. Politics, religion, as Marx called it were simply the superstructures of economics. Today’s leftists believe that every problem in the world is caused by poverty. So this child is out there saying if these guys had jobs they wouldn’t pick up AK-47s,” said Bolton.
He says facts and history prove Harf to be very wrong.
“I think that utterly ignores the roles of ideology in politics and world affairs. Osama bin Laden didn’t lack for job opportunities, nor do many of these other terrorists. If poverty were the source of terrorism, Haiti would be one of the most terrorist countries in the world. It’s so simple-minded that you’d think that nobody would pay attention to it. In fact, you’d think nobody would say such foolish things, but so much for our educational system,” said Bolton.
On Tuesday, Harf suggested her comments were too nuanced for her critics to understand. She also offered quotations from former Secretary of State Colin Powell and former President George W. Bush suggesting that reducing poverty also reduces the allure of terrorist activity. Bolton’s still not buying it.
“I haven’t seen the exact quotes she’s using and I don’t doubt that you can take remarks out of context in a way that makes it look like it supports her position. But she could have Mother Teresa on her side and it still wouldn’t reflect reality,” he said.
As for actually solving the ISIS problem, Bolton says the solution is pretty clear.
“The way you eliminate the threat is to go after is to go after the territory they control, not just by sporadic, pinprick bombing raids but by forging a coalition and using effective military force. I think we’re blinking at reality if we don’t see that that’s ultimately what we need to do,” said Bolton.
Last week, Obama submitted his request for Congress to approve a three-year authorization for the use of military force (AUMF). Bolton says that request is not serious but a robust AUMF would be very helpful.
“I would vote against his text. I think you’ve got authority under the Constitution and under the 2002 resolution that granted President Bush authority to use military force. The only thing that is required is a one-sentence resolution that says the president is authorized to use all necessary means to destroy ISIS and all its affiliates. If you went with that, that would be perfectly satisfactory,” said Bolton.
Three Martini Lunch 2/18/15
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are glad to see Americans paying attention to what seems to be an ineffective U.S. response to ISIS. They also groan as the Obama administration holds a summit on confronting “violent extremism” while Attorney General Eric Holder rejects the importance of labeling Islamic extremism what it is. And they rip Vice President Joe Biden for getting too up close and personal with the wife of new Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter and then badly stereotyping Somalis later in the day.
‘Do We Want to Lead This from Behind?’
Terrorism expert Dr. Walid Phares says the United Nations Security Council could play a critical role in confronting ISIS, but he says that is unlikely to happen as long as the Obama administration refuses to identify the threat to the U.S. and many other nations around the world.
The Obama administration took heat in September for insisting that the Islamic State is neither Islamic nor a state. Earlier this year, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest stated that the Taliban was not a terrorist organization. Over this past weekend, the White House statement to the attacks in Copenhagen never mentioned terrorism or radical Islam. In addition, the response to the ISIS beheading of 21 Coptic Christians in Libya failed to note the faith of those killed, calling them “Egyptian citizens.”
Phares is a longtime professor of Middle East studies and an adviser to the U.S. House of Representatives. His latest book is “The Lost Spring.” He says the administration’s verbal acrobatics don’t help the cause against ISIS.
“There is this general reluctance on behalf of the administration to engage in what we call the war of ideas or what we call the ideological confrontation. They don’t want to identify this as an ideological problem or crisis, so when it’s in Europe, these are extremists, without defining what that means. When it’s in Libya, these are Egyptian citizens though they were targeted for who they were,” said Phares.
He says there is a stark contrast in just the past week between how Obama reacted to acts of terrorism compared to the brutal murder of three Muslims in North Carolina.
“If you apply what the president has said with regard to the tragic killings of three citizens who are Muslim and the way he defined the slaughter of 21 Copts, there’s a big difference. In one case, it’s because of who they were and their identity. In the other case, with the Copts, it’s because they were Egyptian, so there is some correction to be done to our narrative,” said Phares.
Phares also says Obama’s reluctance to identify our enemies flies contrary to how presidents of both parties have approached threats to national security.
“What the administration and its advisers are doing is not a different description. It’s a different identification. They are describing what is not defined. They’re saying these are bad, these are criminals, these are extremists. But they never say who they are. During World War II or the Cold War, all the presidents, Republicans and Democrats, defined and designated what the ideology of the other side is. Then they built strategies,” said Phares.
Phares is making news in recent days over his call for the United Nations Security Council to get much more involved in confronting the threat ISIS poses to many of its member states.
“Remember that those jihadis have been attacking civil societies, not just in the United States but every single member of the permanent five nations on the UN Security Council (United Kingdom, France, Russia, China and the U.S.),” said Phares, who suggests a declaration against ISIS could be more effective than many might think.
“It is time, in my view, that the security council issue a resolution declaring not just ISIS and Al Qaeda but the entire network with its ideology as a threat to the international community and therefore authorize all these governments to conduct not just separate campaigns and activities but join an international campaign and well integrate it against that group,” said Phares.
United Nations critics see the body as effectively useless in these sorts of crises, citing ineffective action on Iraq, Syria, North Korea and many other bad actors on the world stage. Phares contends one critical factor is different than in controversies of the past.
“This situation is different. This is more so the situation that occurred in Korea, minus the Soviet Union, but this time even Russia would be on board. The reason is the international community needs to unify its resources. Besides, the United Nations is nothing more than its own membership, meaning if the big guys of the security council decide can take action and issue a resolution, they can finally have a joint strategy ,” said Phares.
He also thinks a security council resolution could solve other logistical headaches.
“More importantly, if there are any issues between the U.S. and Egypt, between the Russia and some other countries, if it’s done under the umbrella of the UN, it should be helpful,” said Phares.
But who among the permanent five members of the security council would take the lead on something like this? Russia is focused on it’s own foreign policy priorities in Ukraine and elsewhere. China has also demonstrated no leadership on the issue. Phares says it’s time for an American administration that is often reluctant to lead the pack to reassert itself at a time of crisis.
“The question now is really a question of leadership. Do we want to lead this from behind? If we take the lead to the UN Security Council, we would lead it from the front. While I agree this is the thing to do, I’m not sure what the administration in Washington wants to do. That’s a different discussion,” said Phares.
As for Middle Eastern allies in the battle against ISIS, Phares says Egypt and Jordan are clearly the leaders in that region. He says the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia are on board but capable of only playing small roles. Phares says substantial numbers of Libyan troops are willing to fight under a general the west believes can be trusted. He also believes the emerging secular government in Tunisia could play a key role in undermining ISIS in North Africa and beyond.
Three Martini Lunch 2/17/15
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Andrew Johnson of National Review cheer a federal judge for blocking implementation of President Obama’s amnesty for some five million illegal immigrants while the legal challenges play out. We rip the New York Times for a weak correction after a columnist got everything wrong in blaming for teacher layoffs in Wisconsin that happened before he took office. And we smack our foreheads as State Department Spokeswoman Marie Harf suggests ISIS members wouldn’t be motivated to slaughter people if they had good job opportunities.
‘This is 101 in Basic Warfighting’
In the wake of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) beheading 21 Coptic Christians in Libya, retired U.S. Air Force General Tom McInerney is slamming the Obama administration for failing to take obvious military steps to destroy the terrorists and identifying radical Islam as the motivating factor for the atrocities committed throughout the region.
McInerney is a Vietnam veteran and rose to the number three position in the Air Force during his career in uniform. He is now a Fox News military analyst.
On Sunday, ISIS released a new video depicting the beheading of 21 Coptic Christians from Egypt on a beach in Libya.
U.S.-led airstrikes have been aimed at ISIS since August, after the terrorists beheaded American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff. However, McInerney says the operations could be far more intense and would quickly cripple the enemy if done right.
“I think the air campaign is not nearly the intensity we needed. It’s not even an air campaign. It’s somewhere between seven and fifteen sorties a day when we absolutely need upwards of 100-200 sorties a day. I’m calling for 200. We need to be attacking the ISIS capital of Raqqa (Syria) 24/7. We need to close the highway between Raqqa and Mosul, Iraq,” said McInerney.
He says those steps would quickly tighten the noose around ISIS.
“Nothing can move on that highway. If it’s moving, we’ll destroy it. We’ll kill their commerce. We’ll kill their ability to feed people in their ‘Islamic State’. That’s going to require between 100-200 sorties a day, plus we’re going to need constant surveillance reconnaissance assets over the area,” he said.
“Let’s get serious on this. The president has elected not to get serious. The Pentagon wants to do this but the White House is holding back,” added McInerney.
Another concern inside Iraq is the fate of 300 U.S. Marines and the Iraqi forces they are training at the Al Asad military base in Anbar Province of Iraq. Reports conflict over what danger ISIS forces pose near the facility. Pentagon officials publicly state they are not at all worried about the safety of U.S. and Iraqi forces. McInerney isn’t so sure and says this is another issue that could easily be resolved with decisive action.
“We need to put a Global Hawk or a Reaper (drone) overhead between Al-Asad and the town that they captured, al Baghdadi. Anything that moves out of al-Baghdadi towards Al-Asad should be destroyed. In addition, we ought to continuously attack al-Baghdadi. In other words, a good offense gives you a great defense,” said McInerney.
Again, the general sees a dithering administration.
“By attacking those troops in al-Baghdadi, they’re going to be fearing for their lives. but I don;t see this being done. This is 101 in basic war fighting and we’re not getting that. I know the Pentagon wants to do that, but they’re not getting support out of the White House. This is being micromanaged out of the White House,” said McInerney.
In addition his frustration with the military tactics being employed against ISIS, McInerney is livid over the Obama administration refusing to define the motivation behind the threat. Calling the rise an expansion of ISIS the result of “what happens when good people do nothing to fight evil,” McInerney says the Obama administration is keeping its head in the sand about how the ideology of this movement must be confronted.
“The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is a radical Islamic organization. Al Qaeda, that attacked us on 9/11, is a radical Islamic organization. Hamas in the Gaza Strip is a radical Islamic organization. All these organizations that people hear about are radical Islamists. The Iranian government is a radical Islamic organization,” said McInerney.
The general says it is incumbent for President Obama to stop avoiding the elephant in the room and clearly state who and what we are fighting.
“Until the president identifies the threat that we are facing as radical Islam, it makes it very difficult to defeat the threat. I just can’t say it any clearer. It’s important that this White House and this president identify the threat for what it is,” he said.
Obama was vacationing in California over the Presidents’ Day weekend. The only White House responses to the ISIS beheadings or Saturday’s terrorist attacks in Denmark came from written statements. In a very short response to the shootings in Copenhagen, a three-sentence statement from a National Security Council spokesperson never referred to terrorism or radical Islam. On Sunday, the statement from White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest referred to the 21 slain Coptic Christians only as “Egyptian citizens.” McInerney is mystified by the lengths to which the administration goes to avoid references to radical Islam.
“I don’t know. Maybe we have some Islamists embedded in the White House. Whatever it is, it is absolutely bizarre. When Charlie Hebdo was attacked in Europe, everybody was calling it radical Islam except our president, who was calling it violent extremists,” said Mcinerney.
“What is the ideology of violent extremists? I don’t know. Are they Irish? Are they Swedes? Who are they? I do know what the ideology of radical Islamists is. It is the Koran, the Hadith and Sharia Law. Those are the things that we are fighting against,” said McInerney.
Last week, President Obama requested a new congressional authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) against ISIS. Some lawmakers are pleased that Obama is consulting Congress on the mission some six months after it began. Others say the scope is too narrow and should not be limited to just the next three years.
McInerney is not impressed by the request.
“He has given a political document. He’s trying to tie the hands of the president who follows him. He is not being aggressive on this because I think it’s a funding thing. His priorities are on domestic policy. It’s not on the global situation. He’s had four secretaries of defense. No president in our history has had four secretaries of defense. We have lost Libya, Syria and now Yemen. Plus, we have really lost Iraq, because that’s now become a proxy state of Iran when we pulled out,” said McInerney.
In just over six years of the Obama presidency, McInerney saus the pendulum in the Middle East is swinging badly in the wrong direction.
“He has completely changed the geopolitical position in the Middle East. Egypt is now getting aid from the Russians. Forty years ago, we made a brilliant move when we flipped Egypt from relying on the Soviet Union to the United States and the western world. This administration has completely reversed that. It’s a disaster,” he said.
Three Martini Lunch 2/16/15
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Andrew Johnson of National Review are impressed with the clear, firm response of Egypt to the ISIS beheading of 21 Coptic Christians in Libya. They also shake their heads at the weak White House statements to the ISIS beheadings and the Denmark terrorist attack. And they react to Saturday Night Live calling Fox News “fake news” less than a week after suspending Brian Williams.
Parents Lose Colorado Bathroom Battle
Democrats in the Colorado state legislature have killed a bill that would allow school officials and business owners to restrict bathroom and locker room access to people of the same biological sex.
The legislation was sponsored by Republican State Rep. Kim Ransom of Littleton. She says the bill was very straightforward.
“The bill was actually very simple. It restricted access to a sex-segregated locker room based on an individual’s actual biological sex,” said Ransom.
Ransom’s legislation died in committee on a mostly party line vote of 7-4. One Republican crossed the aisle to oppose it.
In 2008, Colorado enacted a law to provide equal accommodation to restrooms and locker rooms for individuals based on the gender with which they identify, rather than the gender identified at birth. Ransom says she brought her new bill to committee after parents became uneasy about people of the opposite biological sex using the same restrooms as their children.
“I actually brought it forward at the request of some parents and a group that was trying to help some moms that were dealing with young children that were just being exposed to people of the opposite sex,” she said.
Ransom insists her legislation is not designed to prevent transgenders from using their preferred facilities.
“It’s not necessarily addressing the cross-gender or transgender at all. That really wasn’t the intent. It’s people that are abusing that statute,” said Ransom.
Some critics of Ransom’s bill suggest this problem in restrooms and locker rooms is hypothetical and no documented problems have been reported. Ransom says the concern is very real.
“What has happened, not only in Colorado but in other states as well, is that predators can use that equal accommodation allowance to go into the opposite locker room and the manager or the school principal can do nothing to remove them, even if they’re ogling children or looking at them or exposing themselves if they say those specific words that they self-identify with that sex,” said Ransom, who says there are specific stories on record.
“The most egregious one was in Washington state. I believe it was a YMCA locker room. There was a woman in a locker room with her two small girls and there was literally was a man that was completely undressed walking around in that locker room. Whether or not his specific thought pattern was female, his outward appearance was male,” said Ransom.
Another major criticism from Democrats was that it amounted to a violation of the civil rights of people who identify with the opposite gender of their birth. Lifesite News reported particularly scathing remarks from Democratic State Rep. Joe Salazar, who suggested the bill was this generation’s version of Jim Crow.
“The reasons for non-desegregating in the 1950s and ’60s was because Mexicans and blacks somehow were sexual perverts,” Salazar said. “I’m offended by this bill because this is rinse and repeat prejudice.”
Ransom is baffled at such a charge.
“This doesn’t really address civil rights. It doesn’t have anything to do with civil rights,” said Ransom. “I was not trying and the bill was not intending to address the statute that was addressed in 2008. It was trying to empower business owners to just enforce the signs on the door if there were complaints.”
But while she’s not looking to overturn existing laws, Ransom says others need to respect the uncomfortable and unsafe position girls find themselves in when school leaders and business owners have their hands completely tied.
“Locker rooms are a vulnerable place to have your kids, you know shower rooms, locker rooms, changing to go to the pool. You want to have your children protected and make sure there aren’t people of the opposite sex in there with your small children,” said Ransom.
In the end, she says common sense ought to prevail.
“When you look at a locker room, there’s usually a stick person with a dress and a stick person with pants, indicating that it’s meant to be a men’s room and a ladies’ room. We’re just having a lot of crossover due to the current laws. I’m just trying to let parents protect their young children from people that abuse the current statute,” said Ransom.
Three Martini Lunch 2/13/15
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review cheer Oregon Democrats for demanding the resignation of Gov. John Kitzhaber over corruption involving his fiancee. They also rip President Obama for making a ridiculous video designed to urge millennials to enroll in Obamacare. And we we discuss Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s admission that she was tipsy at the State of the Union address.
American Family in Crisis
More than half of American teenagers do not live with married parents and the family will be destroyed in this country if the U.S. doesn’t start championing marriage and stop rewarding people for having children out of wedlock, according to a new report from the Family Research Council’s Marriage and Religion Research Institute.
The fifth annual Index of Family Belonging and Rejection” shows just 46 percent of American teens between the ages of 15-17 have grown up with their biological parents always married. For black adolescents, the statistics are far worse.
“This index is particularly acute at a chronic level in the African-American community, where only 17 percent of black teenagers, compared to 54 percent of white teenagers are being raised in intact families and this marks a 21 percent decrease in family belongingness for black teenagers since 1950,” said Ken Blackwell, senior fellow in family empowerment at the Family Research Council.
Blackwell says these worsening numbers carry a whole raft of negative consequences with them.
“It means that we are a nation at risk because there are so many positive benefits of children being nurtured and raised in intact families that too many of our people are missing. It’s having effects socially, culturally and healthwise for too many of our youngsters. And is has an effect on criminality,” said Blackwell.
He says we’ve seen this societal breakdown before.
“We are going to be suffering from the same sort of family breakdown that we find in totalitarian, authoritarian and real major welfare states,” said Blackwell.
“If you look at it across history, there are two things that totalitarian and authoritarian states have done. They’ve weakened or destroyed the family and they have silenced the church, creating a greater dependency on government,” said Blackwell, who says the U.S. is barreling down this ill-advised road by different means.
“That is happening in our country, not through totalitarianism or authoritarianism but through the rapid expansion of the welfare state. It’s having the same disastrous effect in terms of the destruction of the family and the explosive growth in the number of people who are dependent on the government. What we know from historical experience is that the intact family is the incubator of liberty,” said Blackwell.
Blackwell says the biggest problem with government dependency is that is encourages people to make bad decisions.
“The welfare state has an incentive system for families to separate, as opposed to encouraging the intactness of families or maintaining the intactness of families. Welfare states tend to reward families that are not intact. As a consequence, if you want more of something, you reward it,” said Blackwell.
So how can the tide of broken homes be reversed? Blackwell says it will require all hands on deck.
“We know that if we reduce the number of out-of-wedlock births by encouraging young people to refrain from sexual activity until they are married, if we have every institution in our culture supporting a marriage between one man and one woman and if we encourage our young people to stay in school and get a decent education then we know we can reverse this trend,” said Blackwell.
One of those key factors will soon be in front of the Supreme Court. Blackwell reiterates that the numerous benefits of intact marriages are directly linked to strong traditional marriages.
“We’re not going to reverse this trend if we redefine marriage as something other than the natural design of marriage,” said Blackwell.