Steven Sotloff: Reaction Around the Web

ISIL takes another one.

This just depresses me no end.

This should not have happened.

They've got more hostages so you can expect this sort of thing from now on -- at least until we get a president with the cajones to do something about it.

And 9/11 is coming.

Reaction around the web:

Aaron Goldstein:

There's not much I can say at this moment other than to ask a single question. How many more Americans does ISIS have to behead before President Obama develops a strategy on ISIS? 

Independent Journal Review:

As ISIS still has Americans in its blood-stained hands and are willing to butcher more innocents in the name of its perverted cause, the world can no longer turn a blind eye. Whether or not the Commander-in-Chief leaves these terrorists alone, it is high time to form a strategy to defeat them.

Andrew Rosenthal:

Clearly, ISIS intends to go on kidnapping and murdering people and displaying the bloodshed to the world, and the United States is going to have to take an active, leadership role in the civilized world’s response. 

 The Twitchy Team:

Following reports that American journalist Steven Sotloff was beheaded by ISIS, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki held a press conference … and promptly confirmed that the Obama administration is made up of spineless clowns:

Sister Toldjah:

At the end of the video of Sotloff’s beheading, ISIS shows another captive, Briton David Cawthorne Haines. The implication is clear: unless the US stops its airstrikes, Mr. Haines will be slaughtered like James Foley and Mr. Sotloff.

Fox News:

Congressional lawmakers urged the Obama administration to crank up the offensive against the Islamic State after another video surfaced purporting to show the graphic execution of an American journalist.

CNN:

On Friday, Obama said it was too soon to discuss what steps the U.S. would take against the militant group inside Syria. On how to deal with the group in Syria -- where it was born and has a haven, mostly in the city of Raqqa -- the President said: "We don't have a strategy yet."

It's all terrible.

And so while Obama figures out his "strategy," presumably on the golf course, other hostages wait their turn.

Would this be an inappropriate time to ask, "What would Reagan do?"  Because, I mean, I can't see Ronald Reagan, or even George W. Bush for that matter, picking up his clubs and going to the green.  That's what Obama did after the Foley murder, so why would this be different?

This is coming to America next, people.  It's here.  The time to develop a strategy is long overdue.

The jihadists are just taunting us now; it's a shame we don't have a leader up to the task.


Added:

Allahpundit:

Serious question: How many dead Americans does it take to create a casus belli against a terrorist group? Certainly no more than 3,000, per 9/11. Hezbollah killed many more Marines in the 1983 barracks bombing than ISIS has killed journalists, although I suppose you can draw a distinction there between acts of war between military (or paramilitary) forces and outright murder of civilian combatants. Then again, the murder of Daniel Pearl wouldn’t have triggered an AUMF against Al Qaeda had 9/11 not preceded it. If a new AUMF is coming against ISIS, it’ll be because of the strategic terrorist threat the group poses to Americans domestically, not because of what it did to Sotloff and James Foley — although those murders, being so barbaric, will do wonders to build American resolve in smashing these degenerates to pieces.

More at Memeorandum.

Mainstream Media Fiddles,the Middle East Burns, and Obama Does Vegas

I'm dumbfounded.

Just when I thought the world couldn't get any more sprayed-roach crazy than it is, the American Ambassador to Libya is murdered (along with three other Americans), and all the mainstream media can do is criticize Romney for speaking out against it?

This makes me furious.

I don't know if I'm more angry at the media for being such lapdogs or at Obama for letting this happen.

And don't for one single minute think that Obama isn't on the hook here.

The media was, and still is, quick to blame George W. Bush for 9/11, saying he "ignored many al-Qaida warnings" prior to the attack.  But where are they on this?  Where are they on Obama's failure to attend intelligence briefings in the week leading up to the 9/11 anniversary?

I'll tell you where they are - they're in the press room figuring out how to gang up on Mitt Romney and make him look "unpresidential."  Are you kidding me?!  Ben Smith has a bunch of supposedly Republican, anonymous (of course) sources blasting Romney's statement:

A third Republican, a former Bush State Department official, told BuzzFeed, "It wasn't presidential of Romney to go political immediately — a tragedy of this magnitude should be something the nation collectively grieves before politics enters the conversation." 

Really?

George Bush was relentlessly pounded for being slow to react to the news that America was under attack on 9/11/2001.

He was also widely criticized for his slow response to Hurricane Katrina (even though he could NOT go in without authorization from local officials).

But Mitt Romney, in a presidential moment, responds swiftly in a statement decrying the murder of an American in a terrorist attack and it's too soon!  The nation hasn't grieved yet!

It's just crazy.

Professor Jacobson:

Beginning early this morning, when news was just breaking, the left-blogosphere and mainstream media, led by MSNBC, has attempted to shift the focus from the Obama administration’s failure to protect our embassies and for its apologies (both before and after the attack on the Cairo Embassy) to whether Mitt Romney was wrong to criticize Obama last night. 

No, I’m not kidding.

A very good post from Victor Davis Hanson explains how this happened in the first place:

Egypt is currently a beneficiary of more than $1 billion in annual American aid, and its new Muslim Brotherhood–led government is negotiating to have much of its sizable U.S. debt forgiven. Libya, remember, was the recipient of the Obama administration’s “lead from behind” intervention that led to the removal of Moammar Qaddafi — and apparently gave the present demonstrators the freedom to kill Americans. This is all called “smart” diplomacy. 

Be sure to read the whole thing.

And of course, the press can't be bothered with putting the blame where it lies.  They're more interested in removing the threat to their candidate than exposing the truth.

Allahpundit has the right questions:

 The signs were there; one of the Marines at the consulate apparently even saw Libyan “security” taking photos of the compound beforehand. What did the State Department do to prepare? Why are Marines only being sent now, after the fact, to beef up security? Why was there no evacuation plan in place? Why, apparently, didn’t Obama attend any of his daily intel briefings this week with the anniversary of 9/11 bearing down? Why did his campaign move more quickly to condemn Romney for his statement than the White House did to condemn the mob activity in Cairo and Benghazi? Why do these questions only seem to get asked of presidents from the party disfavored by the concern trolls we call reporters? 

If there was ever any doubt that the press is in bed with Obama, it's gone now.

I pray to God that people will do their own research on the candidates this fall and not listen to the mainstream media.  They are as culpable in this debacle as narcissist that inhabits the Oval Office is.

What if George W. Bush had jetted off to Las Vegas for a fundraiser on the night of 9/11?  Why, the press would be apoplectic!  Not the same thing, you say?  Three thousand lives lost to four?  Not the same thing?  Tell that to the families of the victims.  Tell that to the victims that are sure to come.

This is not the end.  There will be more attacks as long as this bungling Jimmy Carter redux is in office.

Brace yourself.

Much more at Memeorandum.

Obama's Ramadan Message

Today was the first day of school for the students.  NOW I remember what it feels like to need to go to sleep at 7:30 in the evening...long before the sun even goes down.  Forgot that part. 

I was getting all ready to settle into bed with Stieg Larsson and Sam Adams when I made the mistake of stumbling across Obama's Ramadan message.  I knew better than to read that.  Really.  But I did it anyway.

Now, the whole idea of Obama having a message for Ramadan doesn't drive me crazy; neither does the iftar dinner.  George Bush held one every year he was in office.  But, oh my goodness, is the message ever different.  Consider what George W. Bush said in his final White House iftar in 2008:

"One of the great strengths of our nation is its religious diversity. Americans practice many different faiths. We all share a belief in the right to worship freely. We reject bigotry in all its forms. And over the past eight years, my administration has been proud to work closely with Muslim Americans to promote justice and tolerance of all faiths," he said.

And Obama's message today:

For all of us must remember that the world we want to build – and the changes that we want to make – must begin in our own hearts, and our own communities. These rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.   Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and racial equality.  And here in the United States, Ramadan is a reminder that Islam has always been part of America and that American Muslims have made extraordinary contributions to our country. 

On the surface, Obama echoes Bush in saying that Muslim Americans have made contributions to our society.  But the heart of Obama's message stresses the change that Americans must make in their hearts.. 

As Americans, he says we should  change our hearts and communities to emulate Islam in "promoting justice, progress tolerance and dignity of all human beings."  It's like he's saying that as Americans we hold but don't practice those principles. 

Maybe I'm over-parsing it.

I probably just missed the "dignity" message in this story, and the justice served in this one. And I'm sure there is progress and tolerance in this story, if I could only find it.  I don't know about racial equality but the gender equality can't be found in this story.  Or this one.

Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.

On Bloomberg's Defense Ground Zero Mosque

Michael Bloomberg's defense of the mosque to be built near Ground Zero is simply disgraceful as well as weak.  I haven't weighed in on this issue much on this blog, partly because so many others are doing a fantastic job on the coverage (Pamela Gellar...) and partly because I just couldn't believe it would actually happen.  That's a problem I often have - "That's so ridiculously inconceivable it just CAN'T happen!  People can't be that crazy!"  I said that before the 2008 election.  See where that got me.

Yesterday New York's Landmark Commission voted unanimously not to give landmark status to a building where the new mosque is to be built just 600 feet from Ground Zero.  This means, of course, that the building can be demolished and the construction on the mosque can proceed.

Bloomberg gave a speech following the vote in which he drew some, well, odd comparisons:

"Of all our precious freedoms, the most important may be the freedom to worship as we wish. And it is a freedom that, even here in a City that is rooted in Dutch tolerance, was hard-won over many years. In the mid-1650s, the small Jewish community living in Lower Manhattan petitioned Dutch Governor Peter Stuyvesant for the right to build a synagogue – and they were turned down.

Okay, so I agree with the fact that our founders intended us to have "freedom to worship as we wish" but he loses me on the comparison to the Jewish community.  I see where he's going with this - that we should exercise tolerance - but the analogy doesn't work.  The Jews never bombed American buildings and they didn't kill 3000 innocents on 9/11.   He then goes on to the Quakers:

"In 1657, when Stuyvesant also prohibited Quakers from holding meetings, a group of non-Quakers in Queens signed the Flushing Remonstrance, a petition in defense of the right of Quakers and others to freely practice their religion. It was perhaps the first formal, political petition for religious freedom in the American colonies – and the organizer was thrown in jail and then banished from New Amsterdam.

Same argument here.  The analogy is flat.  He doesn't ignore the Catholics either:

"In the 1700s, even as religious freedom took hold in America, Catholics in New York were effectively prohibited from practicing their religion – and priests could be arrested. Largely as a result, the first Catholic parish in New York City was not established until the 1780's – St. Peter's on Barclay Street, which still stands just one block north of the World Trade Center site and one block south of the proposed mosque and community center.

The point he's making is that we should exercise tolerance and let other religions have the freedom to practice, to worship.  Nobody is denying that to the Muslims.  There are plenty of mosques in New York City.  There are lots of places that a new mosque could be built should it be necessary to do so.  The fact that THIS mosque is to be built on hallowed ground, at the site where extremist Muslims attacked and killed Americans, is such a gross display of insensitivity it completely trumps any insensitive issues that might lie in one's refusal to let Muslim's practice there. 

For Bloomberg to ignore that is beyond the pale.

This is the thesis of his argument:

The government has no right whatsoever to deny that right [to use that site for worship] – and if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question – should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion?

First of all, nobody is denying anyone the right to worship.  Nobody is trying to "deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship," but don't build it there.  If the leaders behind the mosque project had any intention of bridging community good will and bring people together, they wouldn't build it there.  They don't.  Their point is otherwise intended.

Quite simply, the intent of this particular mosque is to serve as a sign of victory over Americans.  "We beat you.  You can't stop us." 

Bloomberg is a fool to ignore this.

Dorothy Rabinowitz at the Wall Street Journal asks:

Namely, how is it that the planners, who have presented this effort as a grand design for the advancement of healing and interfaith understanding, have refused all consideration of the impact such a center will have near Ground Zero? Why have they insisted, despite intense resistance, on making the center an assertive presence in this place of haunted memory?

And do you just love Robert Gibbs yesterday and his goofy response when asked about this issue?  He declared that the administration was not going to weigh in on "local decision-making."  Since when have they adopted that policy?

In the end, it doesn't matter what they call the mosque, how they frame it, what kind of outreach they do, it's still a victory marker for radical Islam.  If the New York Landmark Commission won't do it, then some other legal way must be found.  It's a slap in the face to the memory of those who died there.

Does it Matter if Obama is a Muslim?

As I scroll through my blogroll this morning there are lots of stories about Obama's comment about America being one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.

From The Caucus:

"The president said the United States and other parts of the Western world 'have to educate ourselves more effectively on Islam.'

“'And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world,' Mr. Obama said. 'And so there’s got to be a better dialogue and a better understanding between the two peoples.'"

WTF?

Dan Spencer at Red State has the best response to this:

Obama may be technically correct. If you compare the “number of Muslim Americans” — 1.8 to 3.0 million — to the Muslim population of other countries, 55 of 175 countries have more Muslims than does the United States. Nevertheless, his convoluted argument reminds me of that old adage you can prove anything with statistics.

If you consider the same population numbers and look at them as percentages, the usual and more meaningful way to deal with demographic data, you find that only 53 of 175 countries have a smaller Muslim population than does the United States. Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.

Take that on the heels of this comment Obama made in April in Turkey:

"One of the great strengths of the United States," the President said, "is ... we have a very large Christian population -- we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."

There was a lot of flak about that comment, given that he seemed to be denouncing the Christian roots upon which the Founding Fathers began this country. He was not speaking for a lot of Americans when he made that comment. It still rankles.

The part of Obama's most recent comment that puzzles is when he says that Americans have to "educate ourselves more effectively on Islam." Why? Because that's HIS religion? Because we need to better understand why the extreme wing of that religion wants to kill us? Why they hate us? Before you decapitate me in the comments, understand that I'm not criticizing the peaceful end of that religion. What I'm criticizing is the continued apologetic tone in Obama's references to Americans.

We don't understand Islam so we are at fault.

And he's not actually including himself when he says "ourselves" - it's more of a royal "we" that he is using. "We are not amused." HE understands Islam pretty darn well because the OTHER big story while you were sleeping is that now it's okay to refer to him as a Muslim - he's now embracing his Muslim roots.

Gateway Pundit tracks that one back through the campaign - how it wasn't okay but now it is.

Jake Tapper wrote about this new view last night:

During a conference call in preparation for President Obama's trip to Cairo, Egypt, where he will address the Muslim world, deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Denis McDonough said "the President himself experienced Islam on three continents before he was able to -- or before he's been able to visit, really, the heart of the Islamic world -- you know, growing up in Indonesia, having a Muslim father -- obviously Muslim Americans (are) a key part of Illinois and Chicago."

But, during the campaign, on the Fight the Smears site, Obama was a "committed Christian." Maybe. Maybe not. Why does it matter?

It matters because it all affects Obama's world view and how he presents America to the rest of the world. Consider how he is now shutting out Israel. Israel has been our staunch ally in the Middle East and what are we now doing to them? Giving them ultimatums.

"United States President Barack Obama intends to give Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu four to six weeks to provide an "updated position" regarding construction in West Bank settlements and the two-state principle. "

Daniel Pipes writes "Even if one ignores the folly of focusing on Jerusalemites adding recreation rooms to their houses rather than Iranians adding centrifuges to their nuclear infrastructure and even if one overlooks the obvious counter productivity of letting Abbas off the hook – the new U.S. approach is doomed." (H/T: Israel Matzev)

So what does it all mean? So Obama is pretty much a Muslim, sees America as one of the largest Muslim countries in the world, and is turning Israel out into the cold. He told us he was going to remake America. We shouldn't be surprised at any of this.

Obama's America is a Muslim America with socialism. We've nationalized the banks, the auto industry and soon health care.

In the end what it means is that he may or may not be a Muslim but he does say and do whatever is politically expedient at the time. Which is I guess what all politicians do, to some degree. I don't care if he's Muslim. I don't care if he isn't. What I do care about is how he represents this country to the rest of the world and how he alienates our allies. I do care about how he's destroying the economy and socializing our country.

Quote of the Day

"In trying to prove that he is not George Bush, Barack Obama has committed big mistakes on key issues of foreign policy. His Cairo address, and his “one-size-fits-all” Islam policy, is just the latest. It encourages Islamists and ruling despots, discourages the forces of reform and change and, ultimately, could produce greater resentment of the United States among peoples thirsting for freedom, human rights and decent governance."

Amir Taheri
"Barack Obama is Blind to
his Blunders Over Islam"

The Proud Family

Uninformed cretin that I am, when I read on Gateway Pundit about Obama's granny going to participate in the Hajj, I had to go look up what it was. Duh.

If you are informed like I was, be so no more. According to the BBC:

"The Hajj is one of the pillars of Islam, which every adult Muslim must undertake at least once in their life if they can afford it and are physically able.

Every year about two million Muslims converge on Mecca - the holiest place in Islam - to take part in an event which combines piety and passion. Many Muslims save for years in order to perform the pilgrimage. They often have to travel thousands of miles. Then, once they arrive, they must brave vast crowds and the fierce heat of the desert as they perform the Hajj rituals."

Granny and Obama's extended family attended the inauguration and posed for the above picture with BHO. The Daily Mail captions the photo as follows:

"Proud family: US President Barack Obama greets members of his British and African-based family at the White House following his inauguration, including half-brother Abongo, far left, and stepmother Kezia, in yellow. He is also surrounded by his half-brother Abongo, his sister-in-law, niece, nephew and other relatives, who all travelled [sic] from Kenya and were in the VIP enclosure for his inauguration in January."

Why isn't Michelle in the picture?

Go to Gateway Pundit for the breakdown on Who's Who in that photo and also for an explanation of who is footing the bill for granny's trip (no, not BHO.)