Can a President Who Has Promised to Stand with the Muslims Protect Americans?

In Obama's Audacity of Hope, he insinuated that he would stand with Muslim Americans should the political winds shift in any ugly direction."  He also asserted in Bob Woodward's Obama's Wars, "We can absorb [another] terrorist attack."  These are two straightforward statements that raise the question of whether a man who has been seemingly obsessed with reaching out to "the Muslim world" since taking office is capable of fulfilling his duty as commander-in-chief to keep America safe and secure.

The negative implications of Obama's time in office will be felt for decades, but one thing is clear. The U.S. President who does not recognize America's exceptionalism and who has promised to stand with Muslims has been unable to keep Americans safe from Islamic terror -- both at home and abroad.  Asserting that "The Obama Years are Synonymous with Terrorism," a recent IBD editorial chronicled the terrorist attacks, both failed and successful, during Obama's term.  From Little Rock and Ft. Hood to Benghazi and Boston, terrorism directed at Americans is far from waning despite Obama's never-ending claims of al-Qaeda's decimation.  And unless Obama's policies of appeasement, political correctness, government dependency, leading from behind, and willful ignorance regarding the Islamic threat to the West will lead to further terrorism.

Obama did not create the Islamist ideology that has fed the fervor of modern-day terrorism.  But from his Cairo speech through his speech Monday night just after the Boston bombings, in which he refused to call the attacks terrorism (he conceded the point the following day), he has made it clear that he does not believe that terrorism is a continuing threat to the lives and safety of Americans.  His refusal to use the terms "War on Terror" and "Islamic fundamentalism" are just examples of a belief either that he can wish away evil or that evil simply does not exist.  But what the country needs is a president who understands Islamic jihad for what it is -- the totalitarian, fundamentalist dogma that drives the violence perpetrated by those who have waged holy war on the West.  And Obama has yet to give us any indication that he understands these very real threats, or that he is interested in, and capable of, protecting us from them.

Based on the fact that, in response to information provided by a foreign government (presumably Russia), the FBI questioned one of the Boston terrorists two years ago and a 2009 domestic violence arrest that should have led to his deportation but did not, Tuesday morning quarterbacks are focusing on Obama's questionable immigration policies, including administrative amnesty that "apparently directs ICE to wait until an illegal alien commits a serious crime or two before considering deportation."i  And while most people think of Hispanics crossing our southern border illegally, few realize that Hezb'allah has operatives working throughout Latin America.  Unfortunately, securing our borders for national security purposes is taking a back-seat to Obama's politicking and demonization of the GOP as anti-immigrant.

Alas, would that it were simply Obama's indifference to our immigration problem that led to the successful terrorist attack last week.  Unfortunately, Obama seems driven by a desire to befriend Muslims and demonize those who recognize that, while not all Muslims are terrorists, most terrorists are Muslimsii and that radical Islam is a clear, present, and dangerous threat.  Martha Raddatz observed, "The president has been so worried about offending non-jihadist Muslims that he's tried to take the ideology out of our enemy, which is nuts considering our enemy is the violent ideology."

The administration's assertions that the Muslim Brotherhood is moderate epitomize the administration's cluelessness.  Notwithstanding the MB doctrine -- "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Koran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope." -- the administration's assertions of secularism and moderation rather than Islamism and sharia domination are indicative of willful ignorance on the part of those formulating foreign policy.  As Barry Rubin stated:

[T]he ability to critique precisely what is radical in Islam and what is wrong with Islamism is handicapped by the successful effort to brand any attempts at making such distinctions as "Islamophobia" instead of a sensible fear of revolutionary Islamism[.]

But is it really ignorance, or is there a dangerous ideology that drives Obama policy in this regard?  In an in-depth essay on the MB's penetration of the government," Clare Lopez observed:

Under the Muslim Brotherhood-influenced Obama administration, U.S. policy has undergone such a drastic shift in the direction of outright support for these jihadist movements -- from al-Qa'eda militias in Libya, to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and both al-Qa'eda and Muslim Brotherhood-linked rebels in Syria -- that it is scarcely recognizable as American any more.

This mentality likely led to Obama's Justice Department dropping the charges against unindicted co-conspirators CAIR, ISNA, and other Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated organizations in the Holy Land Foundation terror-funding trial.  It also helped bring the MB to power in Egypt as Obama threw Mubarak under the proverbial bus despite a decades-long history of a peaceful alliance among Egypt, America, and Israel.  And with numerous MB operatives working with or in the administration, it is no wonder that an Egyptian cleric recently stated, "Trust me, very soon we will see the flag of 'There is no god but Allah' flying over the White House. They are already holding [Muslim] prayers in the White House."

This worldview coupled with the need to ensure some elitists' perceived politically correct discourse is leading to troubling policy decisions.  Succumbing to pressure by MB-affiliated organizations, the FBI was forced to rewrite counter-terrorism training manuals instructing agents on the religion of Islam.  Allen West responded to the fiasco, stating, "We have to understand when tolerance becomes a one-way street, it will lead to cultural suicide[.] ... [W]e should not allow the Muslim Brotherhood-associated groups to be influencing our national security strategy."

One has to wonder whether this played a role in the FBI's failure to discover the Boston terrorists and stop them before they killed.  Rep. Pete King stated on Fox News Sunday:

[T]his is the latest in a series of cases like this. Anwar Awlaki, Major Hasan, Carlos Bledsoe, Robert Headley [sic], and now, this case with the older brother, where the FBI is given information about someone as being potential terrorists, they look at them, and then they don't take action. And they go out and carry out murders after this.    So, again, I'm wondering, again, is there something deficient here? What was wrong?

Whether due to efforts to be politically correct or efforts to hide reality from the public, Obama's refusal to call terrorism what it is is distressing -- and dangerous.  Major Hasan's terrorist attack at Ft. Hood is labeled "workplace violence" despite clear evidence (including screams of "Allahu Akbar") to the contrary.  And a filmmaker accused by the administration of producing a video that led to the Benghazi attacks remains in jail while our new secretary of state echoes Hillary "what difference does it make" Clinton and pronounces, "We got a lot more important things to move on to[.]"  This willful ignorance will lead Kerry, along with Obama's other similarly incompetent appointees, to serve as indirect and unintentional co-conspirators in future terrorist attacks on Americans.

The administration's refusal to discuss what motivated last week's terrorist attack (recall that David Axelrod surmised that Obama was thinking that it was due to "Tax Day") is leading to left-wing apologists and our enemies blaming America.  Until Obama admits that Islamism is a failed ideology and proudly asserts the wisdom of Americanism, how can we expect to end the growing appeal of violence among the Islamic faithful?

In a speech after the Boston attack, Obama referred to himself as "Reverend Obama."  If only he would take on that role in the context of preaching to the Muslim world what a privilege it is to live in our great country.  But it is this refusal to recognize the evils of Islamic fundamentalism that have neutered the administration's ability to confront the problem.  And while the administration declares that the War on Terror is over and Janet Napolitano declares that the Boston attacks were not part of a "broader plot," the terrorists' War on America and its values rages on (a recent story explains that the only reason the terrorists did not kill the carjacking victim was because he was not an American).  Andrew McCarthy explained:

Islamic supremacism is a mainstream Islamic ideology - held by tens of millions of Muslims, not just a few thousand al Qaeda members and collaborators. Thus, if the administration were to admit that this ideology and agenda catalyze terrorism, they would logically have to admit the problem is much bigger than al Qaeda.

... This leads the administration to the absurd conclusions that...a mass-murder attack committed by Muslims, no matter how obviously it is terrorism, should not be acknowledged as terrorism unless it has been committed by either a member of al Qaeda or a group that can be portrayed as "inspired" by al Qaeda (meaning, inspired by "violent extremism," not by Islam).

And Stephen Hayes observed:

This is not, of course, the first time we've seen an apparent eagerness from the Obama administration to minimize or dismiss the possibility of broader ties to international terrorism after attacks or attempted attacks on U.S. interests. Three days after the attempted bombing of an airplane on Christmas Day 2009, President Obama suggested that the attempted attack was the work of "an isolated extremist." He made the claim despite the fact that the bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, told interrogators in interviews shortly after his capture that he'd worked with al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Five months later, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano called the attempted bombing of Times Square by Faisal Shahzad a "one off" attack. Other administration officials downplayed the likelihood of ties to foreign jihadists.

In the coming days and weeks, we will learn more about the influences that led to the radicalization of the Boston terrorists.  What we do know is that the imam from the mosque that the terrorists attended is affiliated with a MB front-group and that he sermonized about violence.  And while the NYPD was vilified for recognizing that there is an incitement problem in America's mosques, the federal government should mirror those anti-terror surveillance programs but likely will not.iii

Exacerbating the problem is Obama's domestic spending sickness that is leaving our military capability in shambles and our homeland security seriously wanting.  In an article discussing the military's "State of Unreadiness" in the context of an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, Col J.E. Dyer observed:

Even during the penurious Carter years, things weren't this bad. It really isn't possible to overstate the seriousness of it...

Burned readiness for the Air Force and Navy -- the services that would execute a strike on the Iranian nuclear program -- means forces that can't be called on when they are needed. Think of "burning readiness" as driving until your gas is gone without a means of refilling the tank. That's what America is doing right now with our armed forces.

While many may argue that the cuts to the military budget are due to partisan congressional dysfunction, it is important to note that the sequester was the brilliant idea of our current commander-in-chief.  Furthermore, it was recently reported that the administration cut the budget for domestic bomb prevention by 45%.  This is the portion of the DHS budget that is allocated to prevent the exact type of terrorist attack that occurred in Boston last week.  And over the past several years, programs that provided millions to schools for training, security, police, and mass tragedies were terminated.

Obama entered office promising to close Gitmo, treating the war on terror as an everyday criminal matter (despite the urging of lawmakers, the administration will not designate the Boston terrorist as an enemy combatantiv), and outlawing enhanced interrogation that leads to life-saving intelligence. While Obama is largely praised for drone attacks that have killed al-Qaeda terrorists, the inevitable result is a dearth of leads that could prevent future attacks.  The premature pullout from Iraq and Afghanistan and resulting void in American influence and strength are resulting in newly emboldened Taliban, al-Qaeda, and Islamic jihadists across the entire region.  Leading from behind has resulted in the weaponization of Islamists.  And the administration has granted Global Entry Status to Saudi Arabian citizens (before those from Great Britain, France, and Israel) and now permits knives, baseball bats, and other potential weapons on airplanes.

Many analysts are now questioning whether the atrocity that befell the citizens of Boston will become the "new normal."  It is clear that future attacks are inevitable as long as our government and the president in particular do not call a spade a spade and begin to take all necessary measures to protect American citizens from the evil deeds of Islamists.

Now is not a time to "stand with Muslims." It is a time to call for Muslims to leave behind centuries of violence and join the civilized race of the 21st century.  And if they do not, they should know that we will fight the War on Terror until the evil is destroyed.

iMore recently, a group of ICE agents sued the administration, claiming that it is dictating how immigration laws are or are not enforced.  Quoting Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies, Andrew Stiles reported that the administration appears "to be giving a lot of fee passes to people who are a public-safety problem, beyond the fact that they are here illegally."

iiAccording to The Religion of Peace website, there have been over 20,000 lethal Muslim terrorist attacks since, 9/11 with approximately 1,800 occurring annually, about 150 per month, and 5 each day. 

iii A Wall Street Journal editorial reports that due, in part, to bureaucratic competition, FBI officials were major sources for the AP stories on the NYPD program.  They also "wish the NYPD had been in charge" in the case of the Boston attack.

iv The importance in naming Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and others as enemy combatants cannot be stressed enough.  This designation would permit extensive interrogation that could possibly lead to information that could prevent future attacks and vital intelligence on terror cells, weapons training, and related matters.  Treating terrorists as common criminals shuts the door to obtaining critical intelligence much like a drone strike terminates any ability to learn from the subject.

The text has been corrected to remove an apocryphal direct quote that Obama would "stand with Muslims", when in fact he referenced "Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example," when he said "I will stand with them." We apologize for the error.

If you experience technical problems, please write to