Obama’s Rewriting of Reality on Jihad

From the Washington Times:

Before the Boston Marathon bombings, the Obama administration argued for years that there is a big difference between terrorists and the tenets of Islam.

A senior White House aide in 2009 publicly urged Washington to cease using the term “jihadist” — asserting that terrorists are simply extremists. Two years later, the White House ordered a cleansing of training materials that Islamic groups deemed offensive.

Now, some analysts are asking whether the 2009 edict and others that followed have dampened law enforcement’s appetite to thoroughly investigate terrorism suspects for fear of offending higher-ups or the American Muslim lobby.

It’s not just suspected.  The most recent fedgov-sponsored anti-terrorism course I took spent the first few hours going over the SPLC’s laundry list of evil white terrorist organizations that to any sane person, aren’t more than a footnote.

In October 2011, 57 Islamic groups wrote a letter to John O. Brennan, now CIA director, but then President Obama’s chief counterterrorism adviser.

Citing news reports, the groups complained of “biased, false and highly offensive training materials about Muslims and Islam” inside the federal government’s instructional halls.

“While recent news reports have highlighted the FBI’s use of biased experts and training materials, we have learned that this problem extends far beyond the FBI and has infected other government agencies, including the U.S. Attorney’s Anti-Terrorism Advisory Councils, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the U.S. Army,” the letter read.

Muslims objected to several training guides, such as a 2009 report produced at the Army Command and General Staff at the Fort Leavenworth School of Advanced Military Studies.

“Moderate Muslims are not exercising moderation; they are simply applying other means to accomplish the same goal of establishing global Islamic dominance,” it quoted the report as saying.

At least two of the 57 groups were listed by the Justice Department as unindicted co-conspirators and as being connected to the Muslim Brotherhood in the prosecution of a Texas charity for funding Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization. The groups are the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America.

The organizations’ letter demanded that biased trainers be disciplined, that all instructors undergo retraining and that materials deemed offensive by Muslim activists be purged.

Want to know why we can’t effectively fight jihadi terrorists?  Why we keep having Fort Hoods and Bostons?

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.  If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.  If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

- Sun Tzu

Sun Tzu’s reflections on the Obama administration would probably be something like: “If you deny yourself knowledge of the enemy and even deny the enemy’s existence because you don’t want to offend the enemy, you have already been defeated.“

John Guandolo, a former FBI counterterrorism agent, has spent years studying the global Muslim Brotherhood movement and its links to American Islamic groups. The FBI relies on some of them to guide its training. The political left has branded Mr. Guandolo an “Islamophobe.”

“There is no strategy in the FBI,” he told The Times. “At FBI headquarters, it is a daily fire drill. The threats come in, and they run around to deal with them and run them down. But because none of it can have anything to do with the Muslim Brotherhood’s movement in the U.S. or Islam, they never address the root cause and common investigative realities.”

Mr. Emerson, who maintains back-channel ties to law enforcement, said any slide presentation on Islamic extremism now has to be submitted to a special Justice Department panel.

He said one slide that was required to be omitted showed the famous photo of captured Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. The photo of a disheveled and unshaven Mohammed was deemed “offensive to Islam,” Mr. Emerson said.

There is a strategy in the FBI.  It’s a strategy of concession and defeat.

… the president does not “see this challenge as a fight against ‘jihadists.’ Describing terrorists in this way — using a legitimate term, jihad, meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal — risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve.”

Some analysts disagree with that interpretation, saying the Koran clearly states that jihad is a “holy war.”

Jihad is war.

Denying it and pretending that it’s simply “internal jihad” denies reality.  The struggle in Islam is further submission to the will of Allah – Islam means submission.  Salaam and the peace of Allah is all about submission to Allah’s will.  People with an internal “my struggle” tend to be types who are worth keeping an eye on anyway.

Beyond that point, it doesn’t actually matter what the US says.  Contrary to American popular belief, the world does not actually revolve around us.  The right knows we’re big and important and we have an important role to play, but we’re ultimately not everything; the left mocks our actual importance, but then thinks every evil in the world is caused by our interference and instead blames America for everything as though we are the cause of all evil in the world – a far more powerful egocentric belief.

Jihadis who are willing to kill themselves to strike a blow against the West in a desire to further the plans for the caliphate do not care what you or I think of them.  The US saying “Islamic jihadi terrorists are Islamic jihadi terrorists” doesn’t change much.

They don’t need our opinion to make themselves legitimate.  They are, by their own actions, legitimating themselves.  They strike terror against the west and they prove they are jihadis.  The US understanding and saying “they’re jihadis” does not magically make them jihadis.  That they are blowing themselves up for jihad makes them jihadis.  This is a question of acknowledging reality.  They aren’t seeking our approval to make them jihadis.

For your nation to protect itself does demand that it acknowledge what it is fighting.

“When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse.”

- Osama bin Laden

Frankly, when we’re acting befuddled because we can’t understand jihad, it doesn’t make us the strong horse.  When our government, filled with mush-brained liberals at best; and jihad-allies leftists as well, tells you with their rose-colored glasses and romantic worldview (or straight up leftist redistributive propaganda) that these are a peaceful, peaceable, highly spiritual wise people with a history that goes back thousands of years, wise exotic mystics who travel the deserts and kept alive the knowledge that racist bigoted white European Christians threw away, and then were attacked by ruthless murderous Christian fundamentalist Crusaders who sought to kill them for some reason… it sets up a ridiculous worldview.

The leftist worldview doesn’t allow for acknowledging who the enemy is.

“They say our enemy is violent extremism,” Mr. Lieberman said. “It’s not. It’s not animal rights extremists or white supremacy extremists. It’s Islamic extremism.”

Lieberman’s one redeeming virtue is that he somewhat understands this.  At the same time, it’s not extremism.

This is extremism:

Rubio also has part of the problem recognized, but this is still a problem:

Sen. Marco Rubio, Florida Republican, told Fox News this week that the administration will not recognize the terrorists for what they are — radicalized Islamists.

These are radical muslims:

Notably, those muslim snowboarders aren’t jihadis.  Or at least, probably not (Tamerlan Tsarnaev was a Golden Gloves boxer, after all).

“My problem with this administration is they refuse to acknowledge the existence of this kind of terrorism,” Mr. Rubio said.

He noted that after the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic complex in Benghazi, Libya, the White House refused to call it terrorism and blamed it on everyday demonstrators.

To really explain that further, the White House’s so-called “demonstrators” brought mortars.  The White House story is that they brought fire support to yell about a video that no one had ever seen.

You don’t bring indirect fire area-effect weapons to a protest.

I voice my continued objection to the new zoning regulations! No new strip centers!

This is a Second Amendment protest – a protest about guns and the right of the people too keep and bear arms in order to throw off oppression – up to and including possibly overthrowing a corrupt government:

And they didn’t bring any artillery.  They also aren’t jihadis.

Update: It also looks like the Tsarnaevs’ bombs required some additional training and expertise to make, as though they might not be a “lone wolf” operation as the administration claims, as though there might actually be some kind of global movement that’s doing this bombing extremist stuff (for no discernable reason)… like there’s maybe a group of people who believe in the same thing (extremism and radicalness, sayeth the administration) and are out to spread terrorism for the sake of terrorism.  Whoa.  (How you can have two people working together and still call them a “lone” wolf ignores what the word “lone” means, but I digress.)

Obama On Boston: Do Not Form An Opinion Until We Decide What Your Opinion Should Be

Via Jawa Report, from the Daily Caller:

Americans should not decide their opinions about the Boston terror attacks until the government decides its own opinion, President Barack Obama told the nation late Friday night.

Really.

…when a tragedy like this happens … it’s important that we do this right,” he claimed.  “That’s why we have investigations … That’s why we have courts.  And that’s why…”

This is justification for the next line.

“…we take care not to rush to judgment — not about the motivations of these individuals; certainly not about entire groups of people,” Obama insisted.

That wasn’t the case a few days ago when NPR said it was domestic right wing extremists.  That wasn’t the case for most of the mainstream media.

The left is more than willing to use terrorist acts to score political points against those they oppose (consider how they supported maniac cop Chris Dorner’s manifesto when it came to gun control, how they accused the communist-quoting leftist who flew into the Austin IRS building of being on the right, and how Palin and the Tea Party was blamed for the schizo in Tuscon, etc.).

There’s never any judgement when it comes to islamic terrorism and jihad – even when there’s overwhelming evidence, and that’s the problem.  Jihad on Fort Hood was called “workplace violence”.  When a guy yells “Allahu akbar!” and says he’s a Soldier of Allah on his business card, and gives presentations on jihad as a good thing, that might all be what’s known as “clues”.

The issue here isn’t to rush to judgement (like the mainstream media claims that the bombers were white male conservative Tea Partiers), nor to wait for the facts (which today are apparent by the jihadis own statements and online presences), the issue here from the president’s point of view is that Islamic terrorism can’t be called what it is.  There are no shortage of islamic terrorist attacks to document it, but there is an ideological component to modern liberal/leftist tolerance that refuses to acknowledge reality.  Never judging and never acknowledging good or evil is a key component to how modern liberals think.

The fact is, the Boston marathon bombers were islamic terrorists.  There’s no denying reality, but there are people who still try.  The White House, in order to deflect blame, has decided to tell the truth slowly to mitigate the damage.

–

Of course, not all muslims are terrorists, obviously, but they are disproportionately represented because the two things do often go hand-in-hand.  When muslim populations around the world are surveyed, they also support terrorism to a disturbingly large degree.  And the same is true inside the US.

Within the US, about one of twelve to one in six muslims (depending on subgroup, as seen above) believe suicide bombing is often/sometimes justified.  In some other polls, there was a “never” option and a “rarely” option to differentiate between those who do support terrorism, but just so fervently as to say “often” or “sometimes”.

The number of pro-suicide bombing muslims jumps to around 13%.  So more than one in eight muslims are ultimately pro-suicide bombing within the US.

The problem is that government for the last few years (or even decades) has chosen never to make a judgement, based on two flawed ideologies.  The Bush administration, run by squishy neocons, went to great pains to call Islam the “religion of peace” and not offend the easily offended.  The Obama government, run by leftist ideologues, has focused on what they think is the enemy – the domestic right that opposes their leftist changes in government, and their destruction of the Constitution.  To the left, which is in power, people like you and me are the enemy because our focus on the American virtues of liberty represents opposition to their fundamentally anti-American worldview.  By contrast, islamic ideology to them, as an enemy of traditional US virtues and the West that they view as an “oppressor” in the world, is an ally.

And as you’re reading this on your own time (if you’re not, tell the Major I’d like four cups of tea sent up, please), you’re being introduced to data that goes against the media and party line – so even if you are on the left, you’ll probably find yourself considered a “right-wing extremist” soon enough.  Consider what happened to Eric Allen Bell – a leftist filmmaker who used to write for fanatically leftist DailyKos and Michael Moore but ended up doing his own research and had his open-minded sensibilities challenged by reality.  He found it’s very hard to be a universal hippy believer in human rights on the left and simultaneously maintain blind lefty support of an ideology that actively oppresses gays and women.

–

If you take all this into account, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, swims like a duck and flies like a duck, then Obama tells you not to rush to judgement, it could be a giraffe.

Leftist Huffpo Is A Joke

First I saw this screencap of a Huffington Post story on Jawa Report:

And I thought, naw, no way they’re that stupid.  There’s no possible way they can be so politically correct as to willingly ignore the mountains of evidence – mostly the Chechen brothers’ own words online and the self-professed ideology they chose to follow.  The media is already crying that Muslims will be victimized, and yet the media really did claim that the brothers muslim terrorist worldview never made a difference.

I looked for the story, but Huffpo, in the face of mocking reality, had finally started to change it – but “no clues” is visible in the Google cache version.

Now it provides “few clues”, as though it still perplexes them.

Ft Hood Terrorist Attack, 3 Years On

Big hat tip to Jawa Report:

Via Jawa, from NYT:

What do you call it when a self-proclaimed “Soldier of Allah” shouting “Allahu Akhbar” opens fire on dozens of US citizens — killing and maiming as many innocents as he can?

You call it terrorism, if you’re sane.

And “workplace violence,” if you’re the Obama administration.

That’s right: Three years after Nidal Malik Hasan’s jihadist shooting spree at Fort Hood, Texas, in which he murdered 13 people and wounded 29 more, the Defense Department still refuses to classify the attack as what it is: an act of terror.

Instead, it continues to label the shooting officially a case of “workplace violence.”

Let’s not forget Obama’s response to Fort Hood, and giving shout outs and thanking Interior Secretary Ken “Boot Stamping On A Human Face Forever” Salazar, and some anti-colonialist diatribe going on about “First Americans”.

Lara Logan Explains the Afghanistan Situation and Islamic Terrorism

Via The Jawa Report:

The Taliban and Al Qaeda aren’t losing.  They aren’t quitting.

Lara Logan discusses what’s really going on, and how she researched the story.  She’s one hell of a reporter.  It’s well worth watching.

“This is terrorism.  It’s a completely and utterly different fight from anything we have faced in our history…  Our way of life is under attack – and if you think that’s government propaganda – if you think that’s nonsense – if you think that’s warmongering – you’re not listening to what the people who are fighting you say about this fight.  In your arrogance, you think you write the script, but you don’t.”

War on Women: “Vote Like Your Lady Parts Depend On It”

Via HotAir:

Last week, the Obama campaign unveiled a range of graphically attractive but intellectually bereft e-cards trying to convince women that a Republican administration would take us back to the puritanical days of yore in which women had no control over their health care decisions (for goodness’ sake, what mature adult would send a plea like this to their mother?), and earlier today, this appeared on the campaign’s tumblr (the Weekly Standard got the screenshot):

Interesting.

So why would someone voting merely for their lady parts want to vote for Democrats, who do everything they can to apologize to totalitarian islamists and bend over backwards for islamists (as seen in the last few weeks with the Libya debacle), who do, in fact, want to destroy lady parts?  Even the nonjudgemental WHO recognizes it as a bad thing:

Female genital mutilation (FGM) comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.

The practice is mostly carried out by traditional circumcisers, who often play other central roles in communities, such as attending childbirths. However, more than 18% of all FGM is performed by health care providers, and this trend is increasing.

FGM is recognized internationally as a violation of the human rights of girls and women. It reflects deep-rooted inequality between the sexes, and constitutes an extreme form of discrimination against women. It is nearly always carried out on minors and is a violation of the rights of children. The practice also violates a person’s rights to health, security and physical integrity, the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to life when the procedure results in death.

–

The practice is most common in the western, eastern, and north-eastern regions of Africa, in some countries in Asia and the Middle East, and among migrants from these areas.

The Democrat party is composed of people who are famous believers in cultural relativism, that every culture is as good as another, and that moral judgements should be eschewed because they’re discriminatory.  That leads down a dark road of razor blades and maiming girls.  Maybe a few decades ago, when there were a rare few democrats (like Patricia Schroeder) willing to stand up to mutilation and try to pass laws against it some kind of argument could be made, but that would still hinge on the ridiculous notion that Americans of other political stripes would want to mutilate women.  Today, when any criticism of islam (which does favor oppression of women, even in some quite visible ways in the west) is decried from the White House on down, and arguments are made for sharia law in the US, there is a difference in who does stand up for human rights and who says it’s merely a cultural tradition that we should respect, like killing apostates.

That’s not even getting into honor killings and how that’s covered up or ignored.  Also, why would you vote for a party that has consistently argued against a woman’s right to self defense by denying her the tools of self defense?  Seems a “lady parts” voter would be concerned about that, too.

There must be some audience for this silly idea, though.  Last night on a nationwide radio show a female host talked about how “our sisters fought for birth control”, and not drug companies and pharmacists who sought to provide a desired product by women and men who wanted consequences-free sex, as though there was some glorious crusade to free women from the shackles of patriarchal biology or something.  Oh well.

Voting with lady parts or man parts means you’re lowering voting to some of the simplest instincts.  Even in the course of making those parts meet, we also tend to listen to our brains, at least a little bit.

It’s 1979 All Over Again

Embassies and consulates attacked, flaccid Democrat president does nothing, Islamic terror attacks, wash, rinse, repeat.

The newest bit of info is that the consulate attack in Libya was planned, and the State Department knew about it, but did nothing, ultimately leading to the deaths of 4 Americans, including the ambassador.

The killings of the US ambassador to Libya and three of his staff were likely to have been the result of a serious and continuing security breach, The Independent can reveal.

American officials believe the attack was planned, but Chris Stevens had been back in the country only a short while and the details of his visit to Benghazi, where he and his staff died, were meant to be confidential.

The US administration is now facing a crisis in Libya. Sensitive documents have gone missing from the consulate in Benghazi and the supposedly secret location of the “safe house” in the city, where the staff had retreated, came under sustained mortar attack. Other such refuges across the country are no longer deemed “safe”.

Some of the missing papers from the consulate are said to list names of Libyans who are working with Americans, putting them potentially at risk from extremist groups, while some of the other documents are said to relate to oil contracts.

According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and “lockdown”, under which movement is severely restricted.

It’s an early report, it could be wrong, but it sure fits with the ineptitude that this administration has handled Libya, Egypt, and Syria.  High-falutin’ speeches don’t really mean anything to a terrorist mob who kill over perceived insults.  The White House has gone into spin mode, which might be believeable if it weren’t for things like Fast and Furious and Obama’s repeated lies about transparency.  The White House has much to lose if it’s true, and the Brit paper really doesn’t have a dog in the fight.

Meanwhile, back stateside, Romney was looking mighty presidential:

And of course, the media was more interested in Romney than the Islamic world attacking our embassies, burning our flags, killing our people, and generally acting like savages.  Or, as Jay Leno would end that line: “In the Middle East, they call it Tuesday.”

There are more attacks planned for the rest of the week, it seems, so this’ll get worse before it gets better.  1979 all over again.

WWII Heroes’ Graves Desecrated In Libya By Islamic Mob

Video here.

Somehow this story slipped through the cracks.

Apparently a lot of these were British Forces’ graves, but US troops and other allies were among them.

Again, a friendly reminder from The Religion of Peace.  Of course, TheReligionOfPeace keeps up on them.

Painting a Portrait: The Most Anti – Christian/Judiasm President Ever

From Wallbuilders:

Just a few examples of just how “Anti-Christian” and “Anti-Judiasm” this president really is:

Here are a few “acts of hostility towards people of biblical faiths:” (to keep it brief I will use one example from each year Obama has been either in office or a candidate)

• April 2008 – Obama speaks disrespectfully of Christians, saying they “cling to guns or religion” and have an “antipathy to people who aren’t like them.”
• April 2009 – When speaking at Georgetown University, Obama orders that a monogram symbolizing Jesus’ name be covered when he is making his speech.
• October 19, 2010 – Obama begins deliberately omitting the phrase about “the Creator” when quoting the Declaration of Independence – an omission he has made on no less than seven occasions.
• January 2011 – After a federal law was passed to transfer a WWI Memorial in the Mojave Desert to private ownership, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that the cross in the memorial could continue to stand, but the Obama administration refused to allow the land to be transferred as required by law, and refused to allow the cross to be re-erected as ordered by the Court.
• February 2012 – The Obama administration forgives student loans in exchange for public service, but announces it will no longer forgive student loans if the public service is related to religion.

Here are a few examples of the United States military actions while Obama has been Commander-in-Chief:

• June 2011 – The Department of Veterans Affairs forbids references to God and Jesus during burial ceremonies at Houston National Cemetery.
• February 2012 – The Army orders Catholic chaplains not to read a letter to parishioners that their archbishop asked them to read.

To further continue making the point, here are a few examples of hostility towards Biblical values:

• January 2009 – President Obama’s nominee for deputy secretary of state asserts that American taxpayers are required to pay for abortions and that limits on abortion funding are unconstitutional.
• July 2010 – The Obama administration uses federal funds in violation of federal law to get Kenya to change its constitution to include abortion.
• July 2011 – Obama allows homosexuals to serve openly in the military, reversing a policy originally instituted by George Washington in March 1778.

The author, David Barton, also goes great lengths to show the president’s preference of all things Islamic:

• May 2009 – While Obama does not host any National Day of Prayer event at the White House, he does host White House Iftar dinners in honor of Ramadan.
• August 2010 – Obama went to great lengths to speak out on multiple occasions on behalf of building an Islamic mosque at Ground Zero, while at the same time he was silent about a Christian church being denied permission to rebuild at that location.
• October 2011 – Obama’s Muslim advisers block Middle Eastern Christians’ access to the White House.
• February 2012 – The Obama administration makes effulgent apologies for Korans being burned by the U. S. military, but when Bibles were burned by the military, numerous reasons were offered why it was the right thing to do.

Mr. Barton gives SOURCES for every one of these claims including the SEVERAL I did not list here. If you don’t believe me check him out. I provided the link at the top of the post and I’ll post it again here.

I’d say this is concrete evidence that the president is not who he says he is. I learned a long time ago that a person’s deeds will betray a lie every time.

 

US Taxpayers Subsidize Overseas Mosques… And Maybe Terrorism

From Gadi Adelman at Family Security Matters:

The story of the U.S. State Department funding mosques overseas was uncovered in July 2010 when reporter Justin Farmer from ABC affiliate WSBTV Channel 2 in Atlanta Georgia did an investigative report. Farmers’ story focused on how the U.S. was spending its tax payer dollars while supposedly trying to cut the budget.

That backstory here at WSBTV:

Updated: 5:23 p.m. Tuesday, July 26, 2011 | Posted: 3:57 p.m. Thursday, Nov. 11, 2010
Mosque Makeovers With Your Tax Dollars

WASHINGTON, D.C —
A Channel 2 Action News investigation found that the State Department is sending millions of dollars to save mosques overseas. This investment has received criticism as the United States makes an effort to slash nearly $4 trillion in government spending.

Plenty of outrage following the announcement made Thursday afternoon by a government commission that suggested huge cuts to the budget, including eliminating the interest education for home mortgage. This juxtaposed with United States investing millions to refurbish mosques as a good-will effort in Muslim countries has upset many taxpayer groups.

Watch The Video And Subscribe To The WSB-TV Youtube Channel

The Channel 2 Action News investigation found a 1,300-year-old Egyptian mosque that was almost flooded by contaminated sewer water that is one of many ancient Cairo mosques and churches that were saved from destruction by the U.S. taxpayers.

This is part of a $770 million program to rebuild Cairo’s sewer system, paid for by the U.S. State Department’s USAID program.

“We are spending money we don’t have. This is all on a gigantic credit card right now,” said Jared Thomas, a taxpayer advocate.

Millions more dollars have been sent to places like Cyprus. The State Department displays before and after pictures of mosques refurbished with U.S. tax dollars.

The FSM piece goes on (no not that FSM):

But what was supposed to be a ‘sewer’ rebuild is much more. The USAID website shows both before and after pictures of one such mosque in Cairo, Egypt.

USAID site here.

Adelman continues, noting that spending money on building mosques is illegal:

205.1(d) of title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations, it states plainly,

 (b) Organizations that receive direct financial assistance from USAID under any USAID program may not engage in inherently religious activities, such as worship, religious instruction, or proselytization, as part of the programs or services directly funded with direct financial assistance from USAID

Long story short, these aren’t just mosques they’re subsidizing, there are also mosques that are being rebuilt in the West Bank and Gaza.  Given that the main exports of those places are terrorism, specifically terrorism of the islamic variety, it seems odd that we’re rebuilding religious infrastructure in an area that uses those religious buildings as places to recruit and attack their neighbors from (mainly Israel, but the same recruitment centers would also send terrorists around the world – most notably nearby Iraq).

Adelman:

Section 4 is titled “Contractor’s Vetting Information Was Incomplete”. In this section it actually stated,

Weaknesses in data accuracy also weaken the project’s efficiency and antiterrorism efforts.

Antiterrorism efforts? I thought this money was going to health reform and development. Perhaps proper health care will keep people from wanting to blow themselves up, I’m not sure on that one. At the end of section 4 as expected two more recommendations.

Now, maybe the program was specifically to rebuild infrastructure to prevent terrorism, and maybe it’s just rebuilding mosques tended to by reform clerics, and so maybe it’s just violating law spending US taxpayer money on mosques on the other side of the globe because… why?  But that part has already been addressed.  Adelman’s wondering where the money really went – and did we directly fund terrorism.

From the audit:

The unreliable partnership with the Minister of Health developed because of the lack of focus in the original statement of work for the project. USAID/West Bank and Gaza also allowed the relationship to develop in this way by approving whatever the Minister requested, regardless of how the requests fit into the mission’s vision and focus for the project.

Huh.

Adelman finishes:

The final part of the audit was the ‘scope’ and it states,

We reviewed compliance by the mission and Chemonics with Executive Order 13224, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism,” and with USAID/West Bank and Gaza Mission Order 21, “Anti-Terrorism Procedures.” Our antiterrorism compliance testing included reviews of relevant documentation, such as USAID/West Bank and Gaza’s agreement with Chemonics and eligibility notifications for trainees, subcontractors, and grantees.

I for one am glad that the compliance of “transactions with persons who commit terrorism” was reviewed through relevant documentation, especially since that documentation was provided by the group that “did not establish a reliable partnership”, “reported results that were not reliable”, “reported of achievements that were sometimes misleading” and provided “vetting information that was incomplete”.

Yes, our debt is growing and in the time it took me to write this it has risen over 2 million dollars. But no worries, we will still give money to our enemies to rebuild their mosques, after all we are sitting down with the Taliban, right?

For info, this is Gadi Adelman’s bio.

This isn’t the first time that US taxpayer money has been pushed to fund mosques.  Even lefty-Annenberg Obama-supporting Orwellian-named Factcheck.org can’t dodge it (of course they say “well, we’re funding other religions, so it’s okay!”).  Daily Caller had this piece on it a while back.

First off, why are we funding any religious buildings?  Especially overseas?  There should at least be atheists up in arms that not only are we not separating church and state, we’re actively rebuilding chuch-states around the globe.  The idea of rebuilding historic artifacts is nice, but there are musuems to do that, there are private charities to do that, and there are the actual nations wherein those historic sites reside to do that.

Second, if we’re funding mosques in hotbeds of terrorism, aren’t we de facto supporting terrorism?  Aren’t we rebuilding terrorist recruitment centers?

Third, even if we aren’t funding terrorism, aren’t we supporting gender discrimination and theocracies?

Not that the west has a particularly good recent history on that.   Note the above picture is from Valley Park Middle School in Toronto.  The boys pray up front, the girls in back, the girls on their periods are way back and not allowed to pray, since they’re unclean.  Enlightenend liberalism becomes enforced segregation.  The effects of cultural relativism.

So at absolute best, we’re supporting institutions that push treating women as “unclean” the same as pigs, dogs, and other things that islam hates.

But let’s check that other law:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

By Congress approving funding for USAID, they’re supporting/respecting an establishment of religion.  By fedgov supporting all of these religious programs, they’re supporting religions, some more than others, and some more dangerous than others.  If we were rebuilding Shinto shrines or Zoroastrian temples, it would still be just as objectionable on the tax aspect, but Shintoists pretty much gave up on suicide attacks over 60 years ago, and have been mostly harmless for a while now.