I say to America the Islamic Caliphate has been established and we will not stop.  Don’t be cowards and attack us with drones. Instead send your soldiers, the ones we humiliated in Iraq. We will humiliate them everywhere, God willing, and we will raise the flag of Allah in the White House. – Abu Mosa, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria Press Officer 

Yesterday, I reported on the Obama Administration’s Plans to drop aid to Kurds trapped on a mountaintop in Iraq, surrounded by the Muslim Terrorist Forces of ISIS, and President Barack Hussein Obama’s reluctant plan of “limited war” to assist them.

The New York Times reports that

To longtime opponents of the Iraq war, the president’s decision represented a step back down a dangerous path, one that may once again entangle the United States in a bloody and destructive venture. Far better, in their view, to find alternatives like urging the United Nations to help the Iraqis conduct their own humanitarian airdrop mission.

“This is a slippery slope if I ever saw one,” said Phyllis Bennis, a scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, a research organization for peace activists. “Whatever else we may have learned from the president’s ‘dumb war,’ it should be eminently clear that we cannot bomb Islamist extremists into submission or disappearance. Every bomb recruits more supporters.”

Others disagreed. “I don’t think this is a slippery slope; this is an isolated circumstance,” said Representative Adam Smith of Washington State, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, saying he supported intervening on behalf of the Kurds, as opposed to the unpopular Baghdad government. “The Kurds are worth helping and defending.”

To some, this is a crisis Mr. Obama brought on himself by not trying harder to leave a residual force behind at the end of 2011 and neglecting to recognize the growing threat as the civil war in Syria next door increasingly spilled over into Iraq. Some argued that a virtual state under ISIS control posed more than the humanitarian threat Mr. Obama seemed to be focused on.

“This is about America’s national security,” said Ryan Crocker, who was ambassador to Iraq under Mr. Bush and to Afghanistan under Mr. Obama. “We don’t understand real evil, organized evil, very well. This is evil incarnate. People like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi,” the ISIS leader, “have been in a fight for a decade. They are messianic in their vision, and they are not going to stop.”

But if not, then the question arises: How far is Mr. Obama willing to go? He said on Thursday that there is “no American military solution” to the Iraqi insurgency, pointing again to the need for a new politically inclusive government in Baghdad. What he might do if that fails he did not say. And while aides stressed this is a narrow mission, they acknowledged scenarios in which it could expand.

Mr. Obama likewise strived to explain why this humanitarian emergency demands American military intervention when others elsewhere have not. Just a week ago, at a news conference, he made the point that the United States cannot intervene everywhere there is a crisis.

“Nobody has the sense about why in some cases and not in others,” said James B. Steinberg, a former deputy secretary of state under Mr. Obama and now dean of the Maxwell School at Syracuse University. “His last news conference just leaves you scratching your head. Yeah, we can’t do everything. But what matters to us?”

Iraq, of course, offers a special case, given the amount of American blood spilled since Mr. Bush’s invasion in 2003. Beyond that, Mr. Obama said that this was an instance where there was a genuine calamity in the making; the government of the country requested help, and the United States had the capacity to step in and make a difference.

“The United States cannot and should not intervene every time there is a crisis in the world,” he said. But in this case, he added, “I believe the United States cannot turn a blind eye.”

In a related story, on April 7, 2010, in a post titled, “The Attack of the Killer Casseroles”, I wrote that

[The White House, according to sources, is in the process of rewriting the United States National Security Strategy Document.  They are eliminating any reference identifying Islam as the source of Terrorist activities.  This comes on the heels on yesterday’s announcement that Scooter Obama has decided to enter into a non-proliferation and nuclear arms reduction treaty with the Russian Bear, trusting without verifying.  And we are not going to retaliate with nukes unless it is a very naughty country like Iran.   Hey Scooter, want to buy some beachfront property in Arizona? 

Gone will be the terms Islamic Extremist,  Islamic Jihadist, and Islamic Fundamentalism.  They are going to replace those terms with Very Angry Person of Middle-Eastern Descent Who Disagrees with the Flawed Foreign Policy of Boooosh…or something like that.

“You take a country where the overwhelming majority are not going to become terrorists, and you go in and say, ‘We’re building you a hospital so you don’t become terrorists.’ That doesn’t make much sense,” said National Security Council staffer Pradeep Ramamurthy.

Ramamurthy runs the administration’s Global Engagement Directorate, a four-person National Security Council team that Obama launched last May with little fanfare and a vague mission to use diplomacy and outreach “in pursuit of a host of national security objectives.”

Since then, the division has not only helped change the vocabulary of fighting terror but also has shaped the way the country invests in Muslim businesses, studies global warming, supports scientific research and combats polio.

I hear they also sell autographed pictures of Scooter sinking a jump shot. 

So, Obama is worried about offending devotees of Islam by linking them to extreme behavior.   After all, those weren’t Muslims that killed 3,000 people in the Twin Towers on 9/11.  Those weren’t Muslims that killed 220 Marines in their barracks in Beirut Lebanon in 1983.  Those weren’t Muslims that killed  sailors on the U.S.Cole in the waters off of Yemen.  Those weren’t Muslims that hijacked the Achille Laro.  That wasn’t a Muslim that blew up Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270.  No.   We must have been mistaken all these years.  All the Islamic Fundamentalists, err, devout religious practicers, are as peaceful as that private madrassa, err, school Scooter attended when he was living in Indonesia as a child.

According to the White House and their sycophants, err, Democratic Congressional leaders, the real enemies of America are all the Seasoned Citizens and Average Americans of all races attending the Tea Party Rallies.  And, for gosh sakes, be careful around those Southern Baptists and Chamber of Commerce members like me.  We might attack you with one of those killer casseroles.]

President Obama is in a trap of his own making. It started with his Speech to the Muslim World at the University of Cairo, shortly after his first Inauguration as President, in which he sounded like a subservient dhimmi. 

In the years that followed his genteel Foreign Policy toward the Barbarians of the Muslim World, known as “Smart Power!”, has led to a never-ending Radical Islamic Revolution in the Middle East, known as Arab Spring, through which Moderate Muslim Dictators are being replaced by Radical Muslim Dictators, the increased threat of the extermination of Israel, and the changing of NASA into a Muslim Outrach Program.

The sixth President of the United States of America, John Quincy Adams, wrote the following about the nature of Islam:

THE ESSENCE OF HIS [MUHAMMAD’S] DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE [Adams’ capital letters]… Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant… While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and goodwill towards men…The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.

Islam and Christianity present two very different Deities, who may share some similarities, but who have different identities and ultimately different standards. To pretend they are the same is not only to be clueless of the faith of 78% of the citizens of this nation, but, to be ignorant of an integral part of our American Heritage, the legacy of Christian Faith, which our Founding Fathers bequeathed us.

I’m sure that there are those among you saying, “Well, KJ, what about all the nice Muslims, who aren’t involved in this mess?”

I have met many nice Muslims in my life. My question, though, is, “Why aren’t those Muslims who have pledged allegiance to OUR flag speaking up against this wanton violence?

Hmmmmm?

Now, I am not saying that every Muslim is on a jihad against “the infidels”.

However…

When Christians become “radicalized”, we want to share the testimony of what God has done for us through His love, with everyone we meet. We get involved in our local church and we become better fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, and American citizens.

When Muslims become “radicalized”, they want to “kill the Infidels” in the name of “Allah the Merciful”.

In the case of the Chechen Muslim brothers who bombed the Boston Marathon, their immersion into Radical Islam led them to “kill the infidels” that horrendous day.

For Liberals to deny that, is disingenuous at best, or just plain out-and-out lying, a collective and intentional naivete which has led this present Administration into a failure of a Forein Policy and our country on the brink of another war.

Until He Comes,

KJ