'Extremist With a Death Wish' — Citizens for Constitutional Freedom Throw David Fry Under the Bus

At the Facebook page for the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom.

I don't see the post buried there, but you can read the screencap, via Twitter:



And here's what looks like is a more recent thread, "A CALL TO DAVID FRY TO STAND DOWN IMMEDIATELY":

I am calling on David Fry, once again, to LEAVE THE MALHEUR WILDERNESS REFUGE. David is one of five holdouts at the refuge. He was not a part of the original group to go to the refuge. He had no part in the great amount of social, legal and political work that Ammon and other people did in the years prior to the takeover of the refuge. David is a Johnny-come-lately who was a media disaster from the start due to his wild public rants.

I remember when I first read some mentions of David in the media shortly after he went out to the refuge. Initially, I thought that he may have just been a naive young man who said some dumb things off the cuff in social media and was being slammed for it by left-leading media outlets. I opened a dialogue with David to find out if the reports about him were true. If he was being inappropriately maligned in the media, I wanted to be able to defend him. But if he was truly an extremist who had infiltrated the ranks at the refuge, I wanted to see him removed from the compound for the sake of the good people of the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom (CCF). So I began an investigation.

David is in his late 20s. He believes in some very good foundational principles regarding issues of morality and freedom. However, David's worldview takes those principles and runs to the fringes. I don't believe that he is altogether mentally stable. He seems to have no sense of social propriety and sees every issue as either black or white with no layers of gray in the middle. Following my investigation, I spoke with David and told him that I felt that, even if his intent was good, his methods of communication were too extreme and would be damaging to the reputation of Ammon and the others at the refuge who did not share his extremist ideologies. I was in no position to tell him to leave the refuge, but I advised him that if I were in charge I would ask him to leave. I also recommended that if he was going to stay on at the refuge, at the very least - for the sake of the reputation of the others - he needed to stop making public statements on social media that were provocative. I recommended that if he wouldn't delete his previous inflammatory messages, to at least change their status from public to restricted.

David chose not to take any of my advice or counsel. Having worked for decades as a political strategist with a keen awareness of the psychology and propensities of the individuals I've worked with, I foresaw David as becoming a serious threat to Ammon's work and to the CCF as a whole. I sent numerous warnings to individuals I knew out at the refuge to ask them to boot David from the group. David later related to me that they had given him a firm warning that if he caused any more trouble that he would be asked to leave. But then more pressing matters began to rapidly accelerate over the next week and the issue of David Fry fell by the wayside.

Today, Ammon and other CCF leaders are in prison. LaVoy Finicum has been murdered. The militia has fled. And, to my shock and disgust, David Fry has become the self-appointed leader of a 5 person band of holdouts who are continuing to defy the FBI. They are armed and, at least as of this writing, they are determined to stay - come hell or high water. Up until yesterday, David Fry was simply a foolish young person with some socially inappropriate views. Today, David is putting the lives of other people at risk, as well as his own.

If any of the other members of David's party can see my words - PLEASE, abandon David and leave. He has become unhinged and seems to have a death wish. Yesterday he was screaming on video that the world was going to get to watch him get killed on live TV. Last night he sent out a Livestream of him and a few others smoking dope together. He is bringing shame upon the CCF and NO GOOD can come from following him.

David, if you continue to wield weapons and defy the federal authorities, they are going to kill you. For the love of God, lay down your arms and come out.

Jake Morphonios

Check for more at the Facebook page.

Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg Walk Off After Bill O'Reilly Says 'Muslims Killed Us on 9/11' — Heads Explode at Think Progress!

Via Gateway Pundit:

Bravo to Bill O’Reilly for telling it like it is. Today he told Whoopi and Behar that Muslims killed us on 9-11… because Muslims killed us on 9-11. Of course, Behar and Whoopi were so outraged at such a statement they actually walked off the set. Ah yes, what tolerance the left has.

BONUS: From the left-wing Democrat extremists at Think Progress (particularly odious comments highlighted):

After O’Reilly’s Rants About How ‘Muslims Killed Us On 9/11!’ Goldberg And Behar Walk Off Stage

well good job, better yet you should have made him leave!!!!

but bill the dill will think this is a victory!!

*****

This is how every pundit and politician that lies and spews misinformation should be treated, they should be mocked and ridiculed, even if like O'Reilly they feel no shame.

*****

They should have replied "Saudi Arabians killed us on 9/11".

Good for them walking off.

*****

And they should have reminded the idiot that he works for the Saudis!

*****

Good on you, ladies!

*****

O'Reilly is something else. Shameful performance. That outburst was akin to his rants about Dr. Tiller.

*****

The 'culture warrior' is culturally illiterate.

*****

They should have turned off his microphone and the lights as he does when someone doesn't cowtow to his obscene rants of hate on his worthless show. I saw him do it once in 2002 and haven't watched him since.

*****

This is where the English language is so pitifully inadequate for people such as O'Reilly.

Muslims did and did not kill "us" on 9/11.

Extremist Muslims killed people on 9/11. O'Reilly is not part of the group that died, nor did every Muslim join the fight to kill innocent people on 9/11.

I'm not expecting any sort of apology out of O'Reilly here, but I ask that he, for his own good, clarify his statement. If he refuses to, it will just show just how close-minded he can be with the English language.

*****

Dear Barbara Walters,
It is impractical to expect people to entertain bigots. Walking away IS the best solution to such idiocy.

*****

I wonder what the blond christofascist Elizabeth Hasselbeck was jumping up and down about.

*****

Hell Mr. O'Reilly we were attacked by MEN! We should ban all males over 18 from the WTC site. What a f---ing propagandist hack.

*****

This is a good thing. I think sometimes these guys get so used to their environment on FOX that they forget what the real world is like. It's good that these views are getting air time on more widely seen venues. Folks like O'Reilly don't realize that the majority of people don't share their views outside the studios of FOX.

*****

I spent over twenty years of my life supporting and defending the Constitution.. including the right to freedom of speech.... but O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh and all the other anti-USA hate speech azzhats out there should be told to STFU or go to jail for sedition and inciting violence.

Republicans are enemies of the United States.

*****

Once again, Bill O'Really has proved he is still a Scum Sucking piece of Sh!t.....he never disappoints.

*****

People like Bill-0 who act is if they speak for all Americans are douche-bags! Of course I speak only for myself

*****

Saying that "Muslims" killed Americans on 9/11/2001 is comparable to saying that "Christians" burn crosses to intimidate others. Most Christians would be appalled to be compared to members of the KKK, and most Muslims are appalled when compared to the monsters who hijacked planes and flew them into crowded buildings.

Of course, there are people who aren't interested in facts, nor are they interested in intelligent debate. They merely want to scream their bigotry and close their ears to reason. There is no way to convince them of anything other than their current mindset. O'Reilly is one of these people. The only way to deal with them is by removing oneself from their presence, as Whoopi and Joy did.

*****

WTF ! Who keeps giving lunatic O'Reilly air time which equates into some credibility????
Big mouth bully O'Reilly is a proven evil extremist Bigoted Hate monger who is a disgrace of a human being and should be treated as a dangerous. poisonous snake.

*****

WTF ! Who keeps giving lunatic O'Reilly air time which equates into some credibility????
Big mouth bully O'Reilly is a proven evil extremist Bigoted Hate monger who is a disgrace of a human being and should be treated as a dangerous. poisonous snake.

*****

I'm sorry but Barbar WaWa is wrong; you cannot have a conversation with someone that refuses to look at the common sense facts before them. To say the terrorists attack was an attack by Muslims is to say that the McVeigh attack was an attack by Christians. To label and entire people, race, creed or religion because of the acts of one, two or even 50 people is beyond stupid, but then prejudice is exactly that - beyond stupid.

*****

Still waiting to hear what poll Bildo cited as having 70% of Americans opposing the cultural center at 51 Park Row, NYC . .

*****

Demonizing Muslims has been a boon in promoting the military occupations of countries whose resources we covet .

The Muslims are to the American fascist what the Jews were to the Nazis !

Who exactly in either party is opposing militarism by our nation abroad , a nation which spends as much as the entire planet combined on it's so called defence ?

*****

That is just plain hateful.

*****

Billy O'Really is nothing more than a "HATE MERCHANT", that's all he will ever be, because that's all he have ever been. His viewers tune in each day to get their 'Daily Dose' of Hate, like a run of the mill crack addict.

His "PRODUCT" is consuming him like a Cancer.

*****

I just watched the whole segment.

Billdoh O'liely IS the pinhead, as Barbara Walters suggests at the close, "Maybe it is you who is the pinhead."

Joy and Woopie came back AFTER Barbara made him apologise for his bigoted statement against ALL Muslims.

And Hasselback was quick to DEFEND O'Liely by saying that Obama, early on in his term, refused to use the word "TERRORIST" and instead said terms like Muslim extremists or radical Islamists and THAT is why people now closely align Muslims with terrorists.

Yea, right Liz... Bigots R-U!

*****

We have all the evidence we need to prove that Zionist crackpots are responsible for 9/11. Everything has been prepared but the gallows.

*****

The fact that individuals like this can spew bigotry and claim righteousness is disgusting.

Love that cognitive dissonance from the crowd as well in the ensuing moments

*****

This is a choice between whether we want to be grownups or whiny children, whether we want to accomplish a goal or just stomp and scream and get attention (and make some megabucks doing it).

Any thoughtful observer, and many who have spoken out on the subject, knows that having responsible, modern, moderate Muslims come to the forefront in America and help us all to understand their point of view and way of life is going to work out much better in the end that having the screamers dominate the scene. From everything I read, the New York mosque would be a blessing to the community... already is, in fact. Wanna have it replaced with half a dozen hysterical bloodthirsty madrasas teaching kids to live only to die for hate?

Face it, if a significant number of them are totally alienated, to the extent of wishing us dead and working to make it so, we are doomed, or at least in for a miserable existence. We should be joining with the (so far) great preponderance who are sensible, peace-loving people and trying to move forward, not listening to the haters who only want to stir up more trouble, mostly for their own benefit....

*****

Tim McVeigh. Isn't that an Irish name, just like O'Reilly? Oh my God, the Irish bombed the Murrah Federal Building! And as I typed that, I remembered "I.R.A.," Irish Republican Army. I believe they were also involved in some terroristic acts.

*****

OMG Muslims killed people on 9/11, O'Reilly is so wrong, we all know it was Presbyterians from Sweden that did the dirty deed.

*****

I am so sick and tired of hearing about how 70% of Americans don't want the Community Center located where it is planned to go. Let me make this clear, The Bill of Rights is not subject to majority opinion. Period.

U.S. Sends Commandos Around the World in New Power Projection Strategy

Training local forces to die in the U.S. interest. Actually, that's not particularly novel, although the Obama administration's picked up the pace.

At WSJ, "New Way the U.S. Projects Power Around the Globe: Commandos":

MAO, Chad—“Is this good?” yelled the U.S. Special Forces sergeant. “No!”

He waved a paper target showing the dismal marksmanship of the Chadian commandos he was here to teach. Dozens of bullet holes intended for the silhouette’s vital organs were instead scattered in an array of flesh wounds and outright misses.

The Chadians, with a reputation as fierce desert fighters, were contrite. They dropped to the fine Saharan sand and pounded out 20 push-ups. “Next time, we’re going to shoot all of the bullets here,” one Chadian soldier said, gesturing toward the target’s solar plexus.

Such scenes play out around the world, evidence of how the U.S. has come to rely on elite military units to maintain its global dominance.

These days, the sun never sets on America’s special-operations forces. Over the past year, they have landed in 81 countries, most of them training local commandos to fight so American troops don’t have to. From Honduras to Mongolia, Estonia to Djibouti, U.S. special operators teach local soldiers diplomatic skills to shield their countries against extremist ideologies, as well as combat skills to fight militants who break through.

President Barack Obama, as part of his plan to shrink U.S. reliance on traditional warfare, has promised to piece together a web of such alliances from South Asia to the Sahel. Faced with mobile enemies working independently of foreign governments, the U.S. military has scattered small, nimble teams in many places, rather than just maintaining large forces in a few.

The budget for Special Operations Command in Tampa, Fla., which dispatches elite troops around the world, jumped to $10 billion in the fiscal year that ended on Sept. 30, from $2.2 billion in 2001. Congress has doubled the command to nearly 70,000 people this year, from 33,000 in fiscal 2001. The Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force provide further funding.

Navy SEALs and Army Green Berets, for example, are stationed in the Baltics, training elite troops from Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia for the type of proxy warfare Russia has conducted in the Crimea and eastern Ukraine.

U.S. forces are also winding down what they consider a successful campaign, begun soon after the Sept. 11 hijackings, to help Filipino forces stymie the al Qaeda-aligned Abu Sayyaf Group. And commanders believe U.S. training of Colombian troops helped turn the tide against rebels and drug traffickers.

At times, U.S. special-operations troops take action themselves, as in the Navy SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden in his Pakistani hideout in 2011, or the rescue of freighter Capt. Richard Phillips from Somali pirates in 2009.

U.S. special operators roam the forests of the Central African Republic, alongside Ugandan troops, hunting the leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army, Joseph Kony . The rebel group, considered a terrorist organization by the U.S., has forcibly recruited children into its ranks.

But the vast majority of special-operations missions involve coaxing and coaching foreign forces to combat extremists the U.S. considers threats.

Driving the idea are 14 years of fighting in Afghanistan, and the on-again-off-again battle in Iraq, expensive land wars that have sapped the political support of many Americans. At the same time, the U.S. faces threats from such free-range terror networks as al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb in Mali; al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen; Islamic State in Syria and Iraq; al-Shabaab in Somalia and Boko Haram in Nigeria. Most of these militants have no borders, instead concealing themselves among civilians disaffected with their own corrupt or inept rulers.

The special-operations strategy has a mixed record. The U.S. tried it in Vietnam, only to watch an advisory mission metastasize into a costly, full-scale war. The U.S. put years of training into Mali’s military, which crumbled before the swift advance of al Qaeda and its allies in 2012.

The partnership between U.S. and Yemeni special operators to battle al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula was disrupted earlier this year when an anti-American rebel group ousted the U.S.-aligned president.

One skeptic, James Carafano, vice president for defense and foreign policy at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said relying on special-operations forces was akin to saying, “I’m not going to do brain surgery because I’m going to give you an aspirin. The world doesn’t work that way.”

Commandos can hunt down enemy leaders or train small indigenous units, Mr. Carafano said, but they alone can’t build a capable national army.

The strategy isn’t always flexible enough to meet immediate threats. American efforts to enlist, train and arm moderate Syrian rebels have moved so slowly that some potential allies have given up on Washington. Many have been overrun by the same extremist groups the U.S. sought to defeat.

The three-week military exercises in Chad, which ended last month, are a microcosm of the U.S. strategy. The annual event started small a decade ago, and has grown to include 1,300 troops, with special-operations contingents from 18 Western nations coaching commandos from 10 African countries.

“We have a common threat in the form of al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Boko Haram and other extremist organizations that threaten our way of life,” said Maj. Gen. Jim Linder, the outgoing commander of Special Operations Command-Africa.

Still more.

New York Times Decries 'Right Wing Extremism' — Again

Well, since I've been reading the Times' editorials, here you go with the latest attack on the "extremist" right, "The Race to the Right":

The toxic effects of right-wing extremism in Washington were vividly on display during the payroll-tax fiasco — even to the right wing. On the campaign trail, though, those lessons are being ignored. The leading Republican presidential candidates are overtly competing for the title of Most Conservative, distorting their own records and advocating increasingly radical positions.

Candidates often move to the ideological edges to win a primary, because that’s where the primary voters are, but the frenzied efforts of Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are particularly hard to watch. Neither has a record as a dogmatic conservative, and they are competing with candidates like Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann who have much longer and more consistent conservative records. That makes their rush to the right all the more desperate and convoluted.

Last week, Mr. Romney blasted Mr. Gingrich as “an extremely unreliable leader in the conservative world,” citing specifically Mr. Gingrich’s criticisms of Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan and his appearance with Nancy Pelosi in a commercial against global warming. Mr. Gingrich, in turn, claims he’s “a lot more conservative” than Mr. Romney.

Real conservatives, in their columns and magazines, say neither of them qualifies, noting that both have previously called themselves “progressives” when appealing to very different audiences than the ones in Iowa and New Hampshire. Mr. Romney once supported abortion rights, though now he says he has changed his mind. Mr. Gingrich fiercely opposes the government’s role in the housing market, but worked for Freddie Mac. Both have supported an individual mandate for health insurance, as well as the TARP bailout of Wall Street.

To make up for their lapses in orthodoxy, each has now adopted positions at the far end of the ideological spectrum. Mr. Romney wants to send home all 11 million illegal immigrants and make them wait many years to return. He equates the president’s goal of raising taxes on the rich with redistributing wealth until the government achieves “equal outcomes” for everyone, all but calling President Obama a Marxist. Rather than demonstrate prudence after the death of the North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il, he recklessly demanded that the United States now push for regime change there. (Without feeling any need to explain just how that might be done, just as he has failed to explain precisely how he will end Iran’s nuclear ambitions once and for all.)

Mr. Gingrich, meanwhile, is now dispensing with the Constitution in his call to drag federal judges before Congress to explain their decisions...

Continue reading.

Call me a right wing extremist, because I don't think any of that stuff from Romney is that exceptional. Sure, both Romney and Gingrich are pandering to the base, but frankly, the concerns of the tea party and others at the grassroots aren't going to be easy to ignore heading into the general election. Republicans have to stay on  message on the economy. They have to hammer this administration for painting extreme economic conditions  in order to seize more power for a massive bureaucratic response to the recession. It hasn't worked. Just keep plugging away on that and in no time the payroll tax debacle will be ancient history and Obama will have to run on his economic record fair and square. And screw the New York Times' editors. These people are pathetic losers cheerleading for more of the same old failed policies. Progressives suck like that.

Political Correctness and the Fort Dix Jihadists

I was shaking my head this morning while reading my hard-copy of the Los Angeles Times and its story on this week's terror convictions in Camden, New Jersey. The piece quotes Ian Lustick, a highly-regarded expert in comparative politics, who suggests that the case represents the "politics of fear" and prosecutorial entrapment:

Ian S. Lustick, a political science professor at the University of Pennsylvania, argued that the federal government has repeatedly overreached when investigating and prosecuting terrorism plots.

"We see a pattern across the country of almost no evidence of anything being done that is actually dangerous, but enormous amounts of evidence of the energy and resources put into entrapment," said Lustick, author of a book on domestic terrorism cases ...

The Times piece concludes with Lustick:

Lustick, the critic of the prosecution, said he was worried the New Jersey case could encourage more such trials unless the Obama administration takes steps to rein in the federal investigators in cases involving small-time groups.

"This is the same story we have seen many times," he said. "These are hucksters, big talkers and adolescents."

Unless Barack Obama "reins in such trials"? It's probably a good bet that he will, unfortunately.

This morning's Wall Street Journal indicates why that would be a disaser for U.S. security:

The jury's verdict is notable because media coverage of the plotters' arrest and trial traveled a familiar arc: After a round of stories noting that a terrorist plot had been rolled up, the media followed up with skepticism and suggestions that the suspects were small-timers or just messing around. The word even went out that, in effect, the government's man on the inside had put them up to it. The implication, as with the Lackawanna Six and Jose Padilla, is always the same: The Bush Administration was advertising phantom threats to justify the trampling of civil liberties and to create a "climate of fear."

Lest we forget, the Fort Dix plotters were finally arrested last year after they moved to buy AK-47s and fully automatic M-16s -- not exactly the stuff of innocent imaginings and idle chatter. Every plotter is an amateur until he pulls off a spectacular attack. This has created a permanent PR problem for the fight against domestic terror plots: If you move too soon, the conventional wisdom comes to doubt that anything serious was averted. But of course, waiting too long means running the risk of another attack on American soil, something we have avoided since 9/11.

The jury found the government had made its case against the Fort Dix crew, with the help of one conspirator who pleaded guilty and cooperated with the prosecution. The other five were not convicted on all counts, but the crimes of which they were convicted are serious enough to remind us that real domestic terror threats exist.

Robert Spencer has more on the poltically-correct reaction to the terror convictions:

The Fort Dix jihad plotters are guilty, and Muslim spokesmen in America are outraged – not at the plotters who have ostensibly "hijacked" their religion, but at the officials who secured the convictions ....

In any case, it is useful to pause and consider how Muslim leaders could be reacting to the verdicts. Instead of hurling reckless charges of "entrapment," they could be taking the hard steps necessary to clean their own house. All these years now after 9/11, most Americans still have no idea that they need do any such housecleaning – even outgoing Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff recently told USA Today that "what we’re confronting is an ideological conflict with an extremist world view that I don’t think is an accurate representative of Islam, but uses the language or hijacks Islam for an extremist agenda." Yet while Muslim and non-Muslim spokesmen have spilled oceans of ink since 9/11 asserting that Islam condemns "terrorism" and the killing of "innocents," without defining what is meant by either term, no one has ever produced any examples of authoritative and orthodox Islamic religious scholars rejecting, on Islamic grounds, jihad violence against non-Muslims; rejecting the idea that Sharia law should be instituted in the Muslim and non-Muslim world; and teaching the idea that non-Muslims and Muslims should live together indefinitely as equals.

Thus the Fort Dix verdicts give American Muslim groups who claim moderation an opportunity to demonstrate the genuineness of the claim, or to be further exposed in the eyes of the public. Now is the time for law enforcement and government officials to call upon the Muslim community to institute comprehensive and inspectable programs teaching against the jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism. If they don’t – and they won’t – one thing is certain: there will be more jihad plots like this one in America.

And no doubt we'll see more prestigious academics blathering away about stuff that's "not actually dangerous."

Iran Still Arming Iraqi Militants, U.S. Claims

The Wall Street Journal reports that Washington's offered new evidence showing continuing Iranian support for Iraqi factions fighting the legitimate government in Baghdad:

The U.S. military says it has found caches of newly made Iranian weapons in Iraq, leading senior officials to conclude Tehran is continuing to funnel armaments into Iraq despite its pledges to the contrary.

Officials in Washington and Baghdad said the purported Iranian mortars, rockets and explosives had date stamps indicating they were manufactured in the past two months. The U.S. plans to publicize the weapons caches in coming days. A pair of senior commanders said a presentation was tentatively planned for Monday.

The allegations, which couldn't be independently verified, mark a further hardening of U.S. rhetoric on Iran, which senior American officials now describe as the greatest long-term threat to Iraq.

This month, Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Iranian support for Shiite extremist groups had grown. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said for the first time that he believed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad knew about the shipments.

Iran has long denied that its government knowingly funneled weapons into Iraq or trained Shiite militants there. It has derided the U.S. claims as propaganda. Several senior U.S. military officials said the weapons caches would undercut the Iranian denials and provide new evidence of continuing Iranian support for Shiite militants across Iraq.

"You can see the manufacturing dates right on the armaments themselves," one senior commander in Baghdad said. "These are very clearly weapons that were made in the last month or so."

Rear Adm. Gregory Smith, the top American military spokesman in Baghdad, said U.S. officials were "working on a briefing that we hope to be able to deliver in the next week or so." He said he would not be "disclosing the substance of the brief."

Last fall, U.S. and Iraqi officials said Mr. Ahmadinejad had told the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that Tehran would take steps to curb shipments of Iranian weaponry into Iraq.

The weapons of deepest concern to U.S. officials were explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs, which U.S. officials accuse Iran of manufacturing and shipping to Shiite militants. EFPs, which are capable of punching through even the strongest U.S. armor, have been responsible for hundreds of American deaths.

The number of EFP attacks began to sharply decline after the Iranian assurances, resulting in a significant reduction in U.S. military casualties. That led several senior State Department officials to conclude that Tehran was honoring its commitments.

At the Pentagon, Mr. Gates and other top military officials have been skeptical, arguing it was too soon to draw that conclusion.

The number of EFP attacks against U.S. forces has rebounded this year. American commanders accuse Iran of providing the rockets that rained down on the heavily fortified Green Zone in Baghdad recently, killing several Americans. U.S. officials said Iran provided the weaponry that Shiite militants used in block-by-block fighting with Iraqi government security forces in the southern port city of Basra this month.

Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, focused his recent congressional testimony almost exclusively on Iran, which he said was playing a "destructive role" by funneling advanced weaponry to Shiite militants in Iraq.

Within the State Department, views about Iran have also been hardening. Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, told reporters last year that there were signs Tehran was "using some influence to bring down violence from extremist Shia militias." Earlier this month, by contrast, he said Iran was playing a "highly dangerous" role in Iraq, and directly accused Tehran of providing the deadly rockets that slammed into the U.S. Embassy compound where he lives and works.

See also, the New York Times, "Groups With Iran’s Backing Blamed for Baghdad Attacks."

Daily Kos Targeted Gabrielle Giffords in June 2008

Heated rhetoric? Reckless political language? And calls to "repudiate" incitements to violence?

Of course, it's almost always conservatives and tea partiers who get the blame. And within minutes of the news from Tuscon yesterday the progressive blogosphere and left-wing media erupted with allegations that Sarah Palin's "hit list" was responsible for the shooting of Giffords and the lives of 6 others. And right now we have Politico desperately attempting to portray shooter Jared Loughner as a right-wing anti-Semitic extremist (despite overwhelming evidence of his hardline progressive Jew-bashing tendencies). And on top of that, Jared Taylor, founder of the American Renaissance organization, reports that he'd never even heard of Loughner until yesterday: "This is complete nonsense."

We don't know what caused the gunman to mount a killing spree in yesterday's carnage. Loughner was most likely confused and mentally deranged. He was most definitely not a constitutionalist or limited government afficionado. But the point here once again is the rank hypocrisy among progressive bloggers and their enablers in the Democratic media complex. The evidence is clear that Markos Moulitsas placed Rep. Gabrielle Giffords "in the crosshairs" nearly two years ago. See Patterico, "Markos Blames Palin for Giffords Shooting — But There’s Just One Problem: Kos Put a Bulls Eye on Giffords," and especially HillBuzz, "IS DAILY KOS INVOLVED IN ARIZONA MURDERS?"

Of course the evidence of that "extremist rhetoric" has been stuffed down the memory hole at Daily Kos. But there's lots more where that came from. See Big Government, "About That Dangerous Political Rhetoric, Markos Edition."

And Markos' own infamous essay from October 2008 is still available, "Crush Their Spirits":

... we have an imperative to take advantage of a historic opportunity to break the conservative movement's backs and crush their spirits ...

Hence our need this year to take advantage of this perfect Democratic storm to not just win, but to utterly wipe the board clear of as many Republicans as we can catch in this wave.

Break their backs? Wipe the board clear? And that's after placing Congresswoman Giffords on the bullseye hit list earlier in the year.

When there's evil of this magnitude we can't trust the press to give us straight and honest reportong. Last night, WSJ's Washington Wire blog once again repeated the lie that "slurs" were hurled at Democratic lawmakers during the healthcare debate on Capitol Hill in 2010:

The shooting comes on the heels of two unusually contentious years in American politics in which lawmakers were shouted down at town hall meetings and some had their offices vandalized.

Partisan tensions during the health care debate led to angry confrontations between Democrats and constituents back home. The weekend of the vote, a small handful of protestors shouted slurs at lawmakers walking to and from the Capitol. In response, House Democrats walked arm-in-arm to the Capitol at one point, a move that struck some at the time as offensive to the thousands of peaceful demonstrators.

That claim has been repeatedly debunked, of course. But the work of citizen journalists is never done.

U.S. Counterterrorism Struggles in Africa

At WSJ, "On Terror's New Front Line, Mistrust Blunts U.S. Strategy":

KUMBOTSO, Nigeria—The shooting clattered on for 30 minutes, residents of this dusty town say, and when it ended, four militants holding a German engineer hostage were dead.

So were the engineer, and four innocent bystanders.

In vast West Africa, a new front-line region in the battle against al Qaeda, Nigeria is America's strategic linchpin, its military one the U.S. counts on to help contain the spread of Islamic militancy. Yet Nigeria has rebuffed American attempts to train that military, whose history of shooting freely has U.S. officials concerned that soldiers here fuel the very militancy they are supposed to counter.

It is just one example of the limits to what is now American policy for policing troubled parts of the world: to rely as much as possible on local partners.

The U.S. and Nigerian authorities don't fully trust each other, limiting cooperation against the threat. And U.S. officials say they are wary of sharing highly sensitive intelligence with the Nigerian government and security services for fear it can't be safeguarded. Nigerian officials concede militants have informants within the government and security forces.

For the U.S., though, cooperation with Nigeria is unavoidable. The country is America's largest African trading partner and fifth-largest oil supplier. Some 30,000 Americans work here. Nigeria has by far the biggest army in a region where al Qaeda has kidnapped scores of Westerners, trained local militants to rig car bombs and waged war across an expanse of Mali the size of Texas. Last month, al Qaeda-linked extremists' attack on a natural-gas plant in faraway Algeria left at least 37 foreigners dead.

In Nigeria, a homegrown Islamic extremist group loosely called Boko Haram has for years attacked churches and schools. The name translates as "Western education is sin."

Now, the sect's followers are joining a broader holy war, led by al Qaeda and financed by kidnappings. On Feb. 16, militants in Nigeria's Muslim north abducted seven mostly European construction workers.

Three days later, gunmen crossed into neighboring Cameroon to kidnap a family of French tourists outside an elephant park. The family appeared in a YouTube video posted this week, its four children squirming on camera, as a spokesman read a message for France, which last month attacked al Qaeda fighters in its former West African colony of Mali.

"We say to the president of France, we are the jihadists who people refer to as Boko Haram," the turban-shrouded man said. "We are fighting the war that he has declared on Islam."

French officials said they were analyzing the video and considering the difficulties in either entrusting Nigerian soldiers to rescue their citizens or staging a rescue raid in a foreign land.

Such kidnappings, like the attack in Algeria, show how extremist groups are leapfrogging borders.

Continue reading.

Assimilation's Failure, Terrorism's Rise

From British author Kenan Malik, at New York Times:

SIX years ago today, on July 7, 2005, Islamist suicide bombers attacked London’s transit system. They blew up three subway trains and a bus, killing 52 people and leaving a nation groping for answers.

In one sense the meaning of 7/7 is as clear to Britons as that of 9/11 is to Americans. It was a savage, brutal attack intended to sow mayhem and terror. Yet whereas 9/11 was the work of a foreign terrorist group, 7/7 was the work of British citizens. The question that haunts London, but that Washington has so far barely had to face, is why four men born and brought up in Britain were gripped by such fanatic zeal for a murderous, medieval dogma.

British authorities have expended much effort in seeking to understand how the 7/7 terrorists acquired their perverted ideas and became “radicalized.” In the immediate wake of the attacks, much ink was spilled over the role of extremist preachers and radical mosques. More recently, the focus has shifted to universities as recruitment centers for terrorists.

But this obsession with radicalization misses the point. The real question is not how people like Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader of the 7/7 bombers, came to be radicalized, but why so many young men, who by all accounts are intelligent, articulate and integrated, come to find this violent, reactionary ideology so attractive. To answer it, we need to look not at extremist preachers or university lecturers but also at public policy, and in particular the failed policy of multiculturalism.

Continue reading.

Actually, I don't separate multiculturalism from extremism. The same ideological forces promote both: the neo-communist left. But state policy exacerbates tensions, and Malik makes some interesting suggestions on bringing people together rather than driving them apart --- and driving some into the hands of terrorists.

It Takes a Village to Debate Bill O'Reilly?

Yep, according to Joan Walsh, " It takes a village to debate Bill O'Reilly!":

I was surprised when so many people I respect told me not to appear on "The O'Reilly Factor." I'd attacked Bill O'Reilly for his jihad against Dr. George Tiller, and he asked me on to discuss my "accusations." I thought that was fair. I could explain my point of view to his face; to say no felt like being a punk. But smart and supportive friends, family, co-workers, Twitterers and media stars all over the country reached out and suggested I skip it.

I thought about it, but not for long. I like doing TV. I'm not terrible at it. I criticized him, I should have the guts to repeat it to his face. I also need to say that when I announced I'd said yes, every one of the doubters, and more, sent me great advice and good wishes. (Thanks to Media Matters who, unbidden, just had staff start sending me clips to watch, about O'Reilly's lies. And if you're not on Twitter, well, Twitter rocked for me.) My daughter coached me; so did my litigator ex-husband, so did my friend and Salon co-conspirator Kerry Lauerman. It takes a village to debate Bill O'Reilly!

His producers also helped by doing that thing they do: "Hey, Bill really respects you for coming on the show! He wants to have a conversation! It'll be fine!"

More at the link. (Also, Digby calls O'Reilly a monster ... but really, for wanting to prevent late-term abortions, and being willing to stand up for his views? Kind of like how Carrie Prejean was treated, no?)

I've already said O'Reilly's pretty much a bully (see, "O'Reilly Hammers Pro-Choice Extremist Joan Walsh!"). But Walsh is as much an "extremist" as O'Reilly. She says he's "driven by demons. God bless him and save him." But really, if she believes in God, why does she think the unborn have no right to life?

This is a strange, even awful woman ...

Care of Memeorandum.

Executing the Winning Strategy in Iraq

Kimberly Kagan's cover story at this week's Weekly Standard details the operational changes that have brought military victory in Iraq. Here's the introduction:

The surge of operations that American and Iraqi forces began on June 15 has dramatically improved security in Baghdad and throughout Iraq. U.S. commanders and soldiers have reversed the negative trends of 2006, some of which date back to 2005. The total number of enemy attacks has fallen for four consecutive months, and has now reached levels last seen before the February 2006 Samarra mosque bombing. IED explosions have plummeted to late 2004 levels. Iraqi civilian casualties, which peaked at 3,000 in the month of December 2006, are now below 1,000 for the second straight month. The number of coalition soldiers killed in action has fallen for five straight months and is now at the lowest level since February 2004. These trends persisted through Ramadan, when violence had typically spiked. "I believe we have achieved some momentum," General Raymond T. Odierno, commander of coalition combat forces in Iraq, said modestly in his November 1 press briefing. Since security was deteriorating dramatically in Iraq a year ago, how U.S. commanders and soldiers and their Iraqi partners achieved this positive momentum deserves explanation, even though hard fighting continues and the war is not yet won.

"As we assess the security gains made over the past four months, I attribute the progress to three prominent dynamics," General Odierno explained. "First, the surge allowed us to eliminate extremist safe havens and sanctuaries, [and] just as importantly to maintain our gains. Second, the ongoing quantitative and qualitative improvement of the Iraqi security forces are translating to ever-increasing
tactical successes. Lastly, there's a clear rejection of al Qaeda and other extremists by large segments of the population, this coupled with the bottom-up awakening movement by both Sunni and Shia who want a chance to reconcile with the government of Iraq." These dynamics worked together to improve security.

After President Bush decided to change strategy and increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, the goal became to secure Iraq's population from violence in order to allow civic and political progress. Generals David Petraeus and Odierno implemented the new strategy and determined how to use the additional troops.

Generals Petraeus and Odierno conducted three successive, large-scale military operations in 2007. The first was Fardh al-Qanoon, or the Baghdad Security Plan, which dispersed U.S. and Iraqi troops throughout the capital in order to secure its inhabitants. The second was Phantom Thunder, an Iraq-wide offensive to clear al Qaeda sanctuaries. The third was Phantom Strike, an Iraq-wide offensive to pursue al Qaeda operatives and other enemies as they fled those sanctuaries and attempted to regroup in smaller areas throughout Iraq. These military operations have improved security throughout central Iraq.

The additional forces, General Odierno explained, permitted "a surge in simultaneous and sustained offensive operations, in partnership with the Iraqi security forces. Furthermore, it allowed us to operate in areas that had not yet seen a sustained coalition presence and to retain our hard-fought gains. Our ability to put pressure on al Qaeda and other extremists and deny them safe havens and sanctuaries increased significantly. This was done with the goal of protecting the population and in concert with political and economic initiatives to buy time and space for the government of Iraq."

Read the whole thing.

Kagan also outlines the military's success in rooting out and destroying Iranian-backed terrorist cells and in neutralizing extremist elements of Moktada al-Sadr's militia.

With the consolidation of success in Iraq, many analysts are raising their sights to victory in the larger, worldwide anti-terror struggle.

Carolyn Glick, in her essay over at Real Clear Politics, notes that as in Iraq, defeating our enemies elsewhere entails actually fighting them, rather than pursuing policies of deterrence and appeasement.

See also Robert Satloff's piece over at the Washington Post. Satloff argues that with the departure of Karen Hughes from the White House (Hughes is undersecretary of state for public diplomacy), the Bush administration has an historic opportunity in its last year to prioritize ideological warfare over public relations in combating the scourge of nihilist Islamist radicalism.

Progressives Attack Paul Ryan: 'Zombie-Eyed Granny-Starving Wingman'

It begins.

Team Obama's already out of the blocks with a web-ad hit piece, via Gateway Pundit, "Let the Smears Begin!… Team Obama Releases Anti Romney-Ryan Video Following VP Announcement." And see Lonely Con, "Is the Obama Campaign Sending Out Random Texts to Americans’ Cell Phones?"

And I tweaked the "zombie granny-starving wingman" from Firedoglake's biggest asshole, TBogg, "Feel the Mittmentum: The Ryaning." Also at FDL, from David Dayen, "Thoughts on the Paul Ryan VP Selection" (a useful piece, by the way, despite the false attacks on conservatives, for it clarifies the stark divide facing the campaigns).

And here's Charles Pierce at Esquire, "Paul Ryan: Murderer of Opportunity, Political Coward, Candidate for Vice President of the United States" (via Memeorandum):

Leave it to Willard Romney, international man of principle, to get himself bullied into being bold and independent.

Make no mistake. In his decision to make Paul Ryan, the zombie-eyed granny-starver from Wisconsin, his running mate, Romney finally surrendered the tattered remnants of his soul not only to the extreme base of his party, but also to extremist economic policies, and to an extremist view of the country he seeks to lead.

Typical, but "murderer of opportunity" is way out there. The Other McCain has more, "New Democrat Campaign Message: Grandma, Cliff, Some Assembly Required."

And Twitchy is on fire, for example, "Another leftist lie: Paul Ryan ‘wants to end Medicare’." There's more at Twitchy's Paul Ryan page.

And from John Podhoretz, at Commentary, "Paul Ryan and Liberal Glee":

The selection of Paul Ryan has been greeted with a wild joy on Twitter, and not just by conservatives; I’ve seen hundreds of liberals celebrate the choice. A spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Jesse Ferguson, said this: “So this is what xmas morning feels like?” The idea here is that Ryan is the perfect target for Democrats because he has proposed specific budget cuts and the overhaul of Medicare, while supporting tax reform that would lower rates on the wealthy....

More important is the quality of the glee itself. It’s an ongoing liberal political-character flaw. So insulated ... are many, if not most, American liberals that they simply presume that which they despise is inherently despicable, and that what they fear is inherently fearful. As they gather in their echo chamber, all they hear are voices resounding with the monstrousness of redesigning Medicare and the parlousness of cutting the federal budget. They genuinely do not know that budget cutting is popular, even if only in theory, and that tens of millions of voters do understand the notion that the government is living far beyond its means. From what we can gather, in fact, these are exactly the sorts of ideas that speak to independent voters and have since the days of Ross Perot.

Ryan is a formidable presence in American politics. Generally speaking, formidable players do formidable things. The glee of the Left suggests its folk are so excited by what the Obama campaign can dish out that they are unprepared for what Ryan and Romney can dish out right back.

They're not "liberals." They're neo-socialist progressives. Other than that, Podhoretz is dead on.

More at Memeorandum.

Britain's Head in the Sand on Islamic Terrorism — And Ours

From the inimitable Melanie Phillips, at London's Daily Mail, "Until our leaders admit the true nature of Islamic extremism, we will never defeat it."

Ever since the spectre of Islamic terrorism in the West first manifested itself, Britain has had its head stuck firmly in the sand.

After both 9/11 and the 7/7 London transport bombings, the Labour government promised to take measures to defend the country against further such attacks.

It defined the problem, however, merely as terrorism, failing to understand that the real issue was the extremist ideas which led to such violence.

Accordingly, it poured money into Muslim community groups, many of which turned out to be dangerously extreme.

When David Cameron came to power, his Government raised hopes of a more realistic approach when it pledged to counter extremist ideas rather than just violence.
This approach, too, has failed. The Government still has no coherent strategy for countering Islamist radicalisation.

Following last week’s barbaric slaughter of Drummer Rigby on the streets of Woolwich by two Islamic fanatics, the Prime Minister has announced that he will head a new Tackling Extremism and Radicalisation Task Force.

And the Home Secretary has said she will look at widening the banning of radical groups preaching hate.

But at the heart of these promises remains a crucial gap. That is the need to define just what kind of extremism we are up against.

The Government has been extraordinarily reluctant to do this — because it refuses to face the blindingly obvious fact that this extremism is religious in nature.

It arises from an interpretation of Islam which takes the words of the Koran literally as a command to kill unbelievers in a jihad, or holy war, in order to impose strict Islamic tenets on the rest of the world.

Of course, millions of Muslims in Britain and elsewhere totally reject this interpretation of their religion.

Most British Muslims want to live peacefully and enjoy the benefits of Western culture. They undoubtedly utterly deplore the notion that the kind of carnage that occurred in Woolwich should take place in Britain.

And let’s not forget that, worldwide, most victims of the jihad are themselves Muslims whom the extremists judge to be polluted by Western ideas.

Nevertheless, this fundamentalist interpretation of the Koran is what is being spouted by hate preachers in Britain and on the internet, and is steadily radicalising thousands of young British Muslims.

Now the Prime Minister says he will crack down on such extremism. Yet after the Woolwich atrocity, he claimed it was ‘a betrayal of Islam’ and that ‘there is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act’.

The London Mayor Boris Johnson went even further, claiming: ‘It is completely wrong to blame this killing on the religion of Islam’ and that the cause was simply the killers’ ‘warped and deluded mindset’.

Yet the video footage of the killers — who had shouted ‘Allahu Akhbar’ when butchering Drummer Rigby — records one of them citing verses in the Koran exhorting the faithful to fight and kill unbelievers, and declaring: ‘We swear by Almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you.’

Frankly, these comments by the Prime Minister and London Mayor were as absurd as saying the medieval Inquisition, for example, had nothing to do with the Catholic Church, but was just the product of a few warped and deluded individuals.

Well, speaking the truth about Islamic jihad takes courage. And so far British leaders haven't demonstrated they have it. And it's not just Britain. President Obama dismissed the London barbarity as "senseless violence" --- because, you know, if it's "senseless," it's random and not worthy of the outright condemnation that such leftist extremism requires.

More from Ms. Phillips at the link.

Meanwhile, never give into the terror apologists and appeasers, wherever they may be.

A Neoconservative Hate Crimes Prevention Act

Congress must act now to pass a Neoconservative Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Such legislation should give federal authorities increased capabilities to engage in hate crimes investigations against those motivated by left-wing hatred who intend to cause injury or death to neoconservatives. Such legislation should give the FBI power to gather data on progressive-leftists who excoriate neoconservative activists, writers, and organizations. Additional provisions could include federal grants to local agencies to investigate groups fomenting hate crimes against neoconservatives. Additionally, such legislation should include a concealed-carry provision allowing neoconservatives to carry handguns for self-protection; and the legislation should allow for the interstate transfer of weapons from one state to another in accordance with concealed carry laws. Recent proposed amendments to the Matthew Shepard Act may serve as a model.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Such legislation is now necessitated by evidence from yesterday's tragic Holocaust Memorial shooting that William Kristol's Weekly Standard may have been a target of suspected killer James von Brunn.

As Ben Smith reports, FBI agents visited the office of the Weekly Standard after finding the magazine's address during the investigation. According to Smith, "Von Brunn attacked "JEWS-NEOCONS-BILL O’REILLY," and the suggestion that neoconservatism is a specifically Jewish conspiracy is common on the racist fringe."

Yes, it is common, and the leftist media is inflaming the anti-Semitic, anti-neocon anger. As Robert Stacy McCain reports, neocon-hating is now the norm among many mainstream pundits. And we've long seen members of the radical netroots commentariat advocating violent suppression of neoconservative views. The netroots hordes are now on the verge of taking things to their logical conclusion. At this Daily Kos thread, "Bush Bites" suggests Democrats should "squash" the neocons: "We have the government on our side right now, and it can squash these pear-shaped losers like bugs if they start any trouble."

This is clearly media-generated extremist incitement. As R.S. McCain notes, Joan Walsh's recent commentary is inflammatory (Newsbusters has more); indeed, Walsh's extreme excoriation of neocons can be seen as part of the larger left-wing environment where folks like James von Brunn have started plotting attacks on neoconservatives. See, for example, Walsh's, "Wild Dick Cheney at the Neocon Corral." Then you've got the Huffington Post publishing interviews with Representative Ron Paul, who argues that President Obama is "as much of a neo-con now as Bush was with this issue and other issues." Such loose talk then gets picked up by the 9/11 Truthers, "Neocon Org Targets Ron Paul, Democrats for Opposing Snoop Bill."

As Kathy Shaidle points out today, genuine conservative have long distanced themselves from such extremism:

In addition, von Brunn is now being associated with the LIberty Lobby. William F. Buckley famously purged the mainstream conservative movement of the John Birch Society, and anti-semitic groups like the Liberty Lobby, way back in the early 1960s. For his pains, the Liberty Lobby accused Buckley of being a "mouthpiece" for the Jewish Anti-Defamation League. (After 14 years, Buckley won a libel judgement against the group.)

My thoughts and prayers go out to the family of Stephen T. Johns, the security officer who was killed yesterday in the line of duty at the Hololcaust Museum.

But let us not kid ourselves. The extremist rhetoric on the far-left, along with that on the antiwar, anti-Semitic paleoconservative right, has created threatening circumstances for members of the neoconservative movement (see Paul Bogdanor for background). So please, take the time and log onto USA.gov and let your elected representatives know that the hour is long past for the introduction and passage of a Neoconservative Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Why Newsweek's Circling the Drain

I mentioned a couple of weeks back how I rarely read Newsweek these days, and here's another example of why.

See, "My Life as a White Supremacist."

No one can forget how Timothy McVeigh set off a bomb in front of a federal building in Oklahoma City in April 19, 1995, killing 168 people including 19 children under the age of 6. FBI efforts to avert another outrage have taken on increased importance in recent years, as fears of Islamic terrorism, a sour economy, expanded federal powers under the Patriot Act, and the nation’s first black president have swelled the ranks of extremist groups. Since President Obama’s election, the number of right-wing extremist groups—a term that covers a broad array of dissidents ranging from white supremacists to antigovernment militias—has mushroomed from 149 to 824, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Alabama-based civil-rights group.

“What we’re seeing today is a resurgence,” says Daryl Johnson, the former senior domestic terrorism analyst for the Department of Homeland Security. In 2009, the department issued a report warning that “right-wing extremism is likely to grow in strength.” And because today’s extremists, unlike their predecessors, have at their disposal online information—bomb-making instructions and terrorist tactics—as well as social-networking tools, the report said, “the consequences of their violence [could be] more severe.”

The report, which was quickly withdrawn after an outcry from conservatives, seemed prescient months later when an 88-year-old gunman opened fire on visitors at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. Last year, nine members of the Hutaree, a Christian militia, were arrested in a plot to kill police officers in Michigan. In January, Jared Lee Loughner, an Army reject, was charged with going on a shooting rampage in Tucson, Ariz., killing a federal judge, among others, and severely wounding Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Earlier this month, the FBI arrested four men of pensionable age in Georgia for allegedly plotting to attack federal buildings and release biological toxins on government employees.

See what I'm saying?

James von Brunn, the suspect in the Holocaust Memorial shooting, was ordered to undergo psychiatric testing while in custody. He hated Jews and neocons. See, Kathy Shaidle, "Holocaust Museum shooter von Brunn a 9/11 'truther' who hated 'neo-cons', Bush, McCain." And the case against the Hutaree Militia unraveled as soon as prosecutors filed charges. And of course, the completely debunked notion that Tuscon killer Jared Loughner was "right wing" long ago devolved into urban legend territory. Even Diane Sawyer resurrected the meme in her recent interview with Representative Giffords.

Pretty bad, eh?

See Reason as well, "Newsweek Cannot Help But Follow Media Tradition of Panic Over Right Wing Extremists."

WikiLeaks Reveals Millions of Dollars Flowing to Extremists Worldwide: President Obama 'Less Critical' of Terror Financing Than Predecessor — UPDATED

The hits keep coming, especially for progressives. And it's not the end game WikiLeaks' neo-communist champions were looking for. According to the New York Times, State Department cables reveal high-level concern over the flow of money to terrorist organizations worldwide, with funding going though some of our most important allies in the Persian Gulf and larger Middle East. And especially interesting is how the cables reveal that President Obama has been less concerned about cracking down on terror financing than was President George W. Bush. The news comes on the heels of the Ahmed Ghailani verdict last month. From civilian trials for enemy combatants to footsie financing for global jihad, the Obama administration continues to weaken U.S. national security and put more and more American lives at risk.

See, "Cables Suggest Mideast Resists U.S. on Cutting Terrorists’ Cash" (via Memeorandum):

WASHINGTON — Nine years after the United States vowed to shut down the money pipeline that finances terrorism, senior Obama administration officials say they believe that many millions of dollars are flowing largely unimpeded to extremist groups worldwide, and they have grown frustrated by frequent resistance from allies in the Middle East, according to secret diplomatic dispatches.

The government cables, sent by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and senior State Department officials, catalog a long list of methods that American officials suspect terrorist financiers are using, from a brazen armed bank robbery in Yemen last year to kidnappings for ransom, drug proceeds in Afghanistan and annual religious pilgrimages to Mecca, where millions of riyals or other forms of currency change hands.

While American officials in their public statements have been relatively upbeat about their progress in disrupting terrorist financing, the internal State Department cables, obtained by WikiLeaks and made available to several news organizations, offer a more pessimistic account, with blunt assessments of the threats to the United States from money flowing to militants affiliated with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas, Lashkar-e-Taiba and other groups.

A classified memo sent by Mrs. Clinton last December made it clear that residents of Saudi Arabia and its neighbors, all allies of the United States, are the chief financial supporters of many extremist activities. “It has been an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority,” the cable said, concluding that “donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.”

The dispatch and others offered similarly grim views about the United Arab Emirates (“a strategic gap” that terrorists can exploit), Qatar (“the worst in the region” on counterterrorism) and Kuwait (“a key transit point”). The cable stressed the need to “generate the political will necessary” to block money to terrorist networks — groups that she said were “threatening stability in Pakistan and Afghanistan and targeting coalition soldiers.”

While President George W. Bush frequently vowed to cut off financing for militants and pledged to make financiers as culpable as terrorists who carried out plots, President Obama has been far less vocal on the issue publicly as he has sought to adopt a more conciliatory tone with Arab nations. But his administration has used many of the same covert diplomatic, intelligence and law enforcement tools as his predecessor and set up a special task force in the summer of 2009 to deal with the growing problem.

While federal officials can point to some successes — prosecutions, seizures of money and tightened money-laundering regulations in foreign countries — the results have often been frustrating, the cables show. As the United States has pushed for more aggressive crackdowns on suspected supporters of terrorism, foreign leaders have pushed back. In private meetings, they have accused American officials of heavy-handedness and of presenting thin evidence of wrongdoing by Arab charities or individuals, according to numerous State Department cables.

Were it not for bureaucratic momentum, the Obama administration would be much less vigilant against the terror finance network than it is. And of course, the same president who campaigned on global conciliation and talkin' sweet to terrorists, who offered heartfelt apologies around the world through 2009, and whose administration refused to fight a "War on Terror" in favor of managing "Overseas Contingency Operations," is again overwhelmed in the battle against global jihad. Recall that Obama told the Washington Post's Bob Woodward that the U.S. would be able to absorb another 3,000 dead in new terror attack on the scale of the 9/11 catastrophe. Hey, perhaps all our enemies need is a little more money. This is the administration's "new approach to terrorism."

Meanwhile, the conciliatory soft-on-terror parade continues with folks like Professor Daniel Drezner suggesting perhaps "Al Qaeda is no longer in the first tier of national security threats?" Drezner draws on Peter Bergen, "Bin Laden’s Lonely Crusade." Of course, it's not really about Bin Laden any more, but the global network of follow-on organizations who clearly have support in capitals across the Persian Gulf. But hey, let's defer to the experts. We need to talk to our enemies, and give them cash.

*****

UPDATE: A reader suggests by e-mail that the Times article, especially the last paragraph of the passage quoted above, contradicts my thesis at the post. So to reiterate: I'm stressing the president's disposition toward appeasement and public conciliation. Certainly State Department operatives, as is clear at the Times, have pressed Persian Gulf nations for greater cooperation, but the executive sets the tone, and I've thoroughly documented here the administration's shift to a softer, law enforcement fight against jihad. And further, others have seen administration failures in the WikiLeaks dump. Perhaps it's realpolitik, but the administration has failed to more effectively push against terror financing regimes, and this is to a notable extent apparent during the last two years. See, "WikiLeaks - Saudi Arabia: Their Oil is Thicker Than Our Blood":

In January 2010, the Saudi government refused to assist the U.S. request for information in a terror financing case involving a major Saudi bank. The Riyadh based Al Rajhi Bank, the largest Islamic bank in the Gulf Cooperation Council, and the third largest commercial bank in Saudi Arabia, refused to comply with a subpoena issued in the terror financing trial of Dr. Peter Seda, a U.S. operative of the Saudi based, U.S. designated, and allegedly defunct charity al Haramain Foundation. The evidence provided by the prosecution showed the Saudi al Rajhi Bank transferred $151,000 to the Chechen mujahedeen. Still, The Saudis who in 2007 ratified the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, refused to cooperate.

The May 31, 2010 edition of The Sunday Times revealed that the Afghan financial intelligence unit, FinTraca, reported that since 2006, at least $1.5 billion from Saudi Arabia were smuggled into Afghanistan, headed most probably to the Taliban. The money entered Afghanistan through Pakistani tribal area, especially through North Waziristan, known as “al-Qaeda’s heartland.” One wonders how much of this money was used to buy weapons that killed 1,268 American soldiers and maimed thousands more in Afghanistan.

Also in May 2010, leaked Saudi intelligence document showing continued Saudi governmental support for al Qaeda in the form of cash and weapons, were published by Buratha News Service, an independent news source in Iraq.

On November 15, 2010, the GAO released its 2009 report on Saudi efforts to stop terror financing. It concluded that the “U.S. and Saudi officials report progress on countering terrorism and its financing within Saudi Arabia, but noted challenges, particularly in preventing alleged funding for terrorism and violent extremism outside of Saudi Arabia. (Emphasis added). Moreover, there are no restrictions on foreign branches of Saudi-based charities from funding terrorist groups. In addition, cash in large quantities to fund terrorism, is being smuggled out of the country via couriers.

Despite all the evidence of the danger posed by the Wahhabist message, the U.S. has continued its preferential treatment of the Kingdom, while Saudi funds continue flowing to Sunni radical groups, foreign charities, mosques, Islamic centers, and academic institutions.

It is time the U.S. took serious measures to protect Americans at home and abroad from the ill effects of Saudi funding to spread global Wahhabi radicalizations.

Discovery Channel Gunman 'Was Just an Average DC Nut Job'

John Lilyea would know. See, "Yeah, I Talked With the Discovery Channel Gunman":

I had a long conversation while waiting for the Code Pink/IVAW protest last October ...

He was steeped in all kinds of Leftist blather. But he spewed out a lot of Ron Paul crap mixed with some Republican talking points – whatever fit his protest sign. He was a raving lunatic and I wouldn’t blame any political party for James J. Lee like some people have. He was just an average DC nut job.

I posted on this yesterday, especially on the typical leftist reaction to label this sick man a "right-wing extremist." See, "Charles Johnson, Think Progress Strain to Portray Discovery Gunman as Right-Wing Anti-Immigrant Extremist."

Additional background at Verum Serum, "Violence at the Discovery Channel (Video of James Lee Added)." (Via Memeorandum.) And at ABC News, "Police Say Discovery Channel Gunman James Lee Posed 'Grave Danger' to Hostages: Gunman's Brother Believes James Lee Wanted to Be Killed By Police."

Heh. I'm Cheering 'Professor Watchlist'

Having been on the receiving end of leftist campaigns to have me fired from my teaching job for having conservative views, I can only laugh at the progressive shock to the creation of the new website, "Professor Watchlist."

My view is that as long as left-wing professors treat all their students fairly, then they should be able to spew whatever they want. (But of course they don't treat conservatives fairly.) That, and they have academic freedom too. Of course the humanities and social sciences have been plagued by the radical takeover since at least the 1960s, and even earlier if you consider the German invasion of "critical theorists" at American universities after World War Two. So the problem merits some consideration as to remedies.

I mean seriously, it's like a plague.

I expect the best way to fight back is to simply to expose the left's hated and malevolence. There'll be enough cases of corruption and ideological harassment that left-wing professors will start losing their jobs. Leave it to local districts, and their voting constituents, to do the job. Just make sure that obscene campus ideological indoctrination and politicization is brought to public light and held accountable. It's not like there'll be a shortage of cases.

Here's the list.

I haven't actually skimmed it over yet, although I'm pleased as punch to see that Erik "Homosexual Lumberjack" Loomis has been recognized, and he's not too happy about it, hilariously.

See the idiot's essay at the Nation, "Trumpism Poses the Most Dire Threat to Academic Freedom in Recent Memory":

Thanks to the principle of academic freedom, professors have unusual space in American society to challenge the powerful without fear of retribution. For this reason the right has always resented professors, and for decades it has targeted them as subversives. The election of Donald Trump and the rise to power of the extremist ideologues surrounding him, like Steve Bannon and Rudolph Giuliani, make this a frightening moment for those academics who see fighting for a more just world as part of their job.

In 2012, I found myself the target of a hate campaign after saying a few intemperate things about the National Rifle Association and American gun culture in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. I was upset not only because of the horrors of the event itself—a shocking one for many Americans—but because in 1998 my high-school Spanish teacher in Springfield, Oregon, had been murdered by her son before shooting up his own high school. How many people had to die before anything was changed? Noting on Twitter that I would like to hold NRA leadership accountable for its promotion of high-powered firearms, I said that I wanted to see “Wayne LaPierre’s head on a stick.” This was obviously a metaphor, but thanks to a right-wing website called Campus Reform, which “monitors” leftists on college campuses, demagogues such as Michelle Malkin started a campaign to have me fired. Hundreds of phone calls and e-mails poured into the university. Luckily, I work on a unionized campus and nothing came of the campaign.

While people still joke about this incident with me, I barely gave it another thought until two weeks ago when a young conservative activist backed by the extremist right-wing organization Turning Points USA created the Professor Watchlist. Listing 195 professors believed to be hostile to the group’s agenda of unregulated capitalism, white-supremacist politics, and opposition to women’s reproductive freedom, it is a rough draft of a possible Trump-era blacklist. I was placed on the Watchlist because of my attacks on the NRA four years ago. Professors across the nation found themselves suddenly targeted by well-connected conservative activists in a nation where increasingly radical Republicans have suddenly captured each branch of government. No one knows what will come of it, but the shock has ricocheted through the halls of campuses all across the country.

So far, the reaction has mostly been an awesome display of solidarity from my students and my colleagues, both at my university and around the nation. Hundreds of professors have reported themselves to the Professor Watchlist, asking to be included, with faculty at the University of Notre Dame even writing a public letter to that effect. This is wonderful. But what happens after Inauguration Day? Will free speech be respected by the Trump administration? Will the right be emboldened to launch increasingly harsh attacks against professors? If there are sustained pressure campaigns against radical academics, will administrations be able to resist giving in?

Still more.

And fuck "radical academics," the bleedin' idiot losers.