There is a word for Obama diplomacy: ‘Dangerous’

There is a word for Obama diplomacy: ‘Dangerous’
Sol Sanders also writes the “Asia Investor” column weekly for EAST-ASIA-INTEL.com.
“Naivete in grownups is often charming; but when coupled with vanity it is indistinguishable from stupidity.” — Eric Hoffer
President Obama’s encounter with Hugo Chavez at the Western Hemisphere summit may be soon forgotten as one of those footnotes, seemingly important and compelling at the time, but lost in the shuffle of history. In another time, another world, the “anti-imperialista” demonstrators who spat on then Vice President Richard Nixon [in Venezuela, by the way] didn’t know they were contributing to a political career that would shake the U.S. and the world. ShareThis
Obama challenged his media audience in the post-summit press conference to give him an argument why his extending a hand of friendship to Chavez in any way endangered American national interest. [By the way, most of the mainstream media has ignored a second meeting with more abrazos and conversation, which was aired on Venezuela state TV, obviously to enhance the image of a would-be dictator increasingly falling out of public favor.]
Apparently neither his interlocutors nor the President has followed recent Venezuelan events where the Chavez regime has removed or hounded into hiding opposition mayors of its two largest cities, its pistoleros have killed or banished into exile critical newsmen, U.S. government documentation nailing Chavez not only aiding anti-government guerrillas in neighboring Colombia, but cooperating with the Mexican cartels to move their cocaine into the U.S., and that The Caudillo himself starting the process of a lifetime presidency with a “plebiscite” in February authorizing him to run again for the presidency.
Would it be idle speculation to believe that not so far down the line, the Hemisphere which made democratic processes the only stricture for keeping The Castro Brothers out of what turned into an idle and useless meeting, the U.S. and its Latin friends would be facing a “threat to peace” in Chavez’ Venezuela? Was it worthwhile to give Chavez the needed prestige and “cover” for continuing this reign of demagoguery in Caracas before any issues were explored?
The Obama Administration’s mantra that they have discovered “negotiations” is almost as foolish as their belief that they have opened new channels of communication. As historians have always documented after the fact, there are always dozens of lines of contact out of sight of the media and the public between the major and the minor powers — even when they are at war with one another. They are carried on through all the government venues — including those “secret” rendezvous between opposition intelligence organizations. [In the 1960s at the height of the Cold War and the war in neighboring Vietnam, one of the least best kept secret in Bangkok was the table at Mizu’s Japanese restaurant on Patpong reserved for the CIA and KGB representatives to have their little friendly get-togethers — and exchanges.] And then there are the myriad channels of businessmen, academics, parliamentarians, and ordinary tourists who transmit information as well as governments carrying messages for other governments.
But lending the president’s persona and prestige to the preliminaries of any effort to unlock longstanding conflicts or threats to the national interest is dangerous. Or turning thorny issues into bumper slogans which so frequently distort the complications and danger of those issues. Why not, a talking head this morning said, see communication with a Communist Cuba in the same light as the U.S. communicates with a Communist China or a Communist North Korea? Because, if for no other reason, The Castro Brothers were once willing to see their country — 90 miles off the Florida keys — used as a base for Soviet weapons that could have brought on World War III. Yes, a great deal of water has gone through the Gulf Stream since then, but so long as Cuba has a one-party police state regime, headed by a personalized dictatorship, spouting anti-American propaganda on a 24-hour basis, that threat to national security exists. More than a half century later, of course, it is sage to invite a reexamination of issues. But Obama’s initial gesture of abruptly lifting restrictions on Cuban family visits and remittances has been matched by … a phrase in an otherwise typical Castro screed offering to talk about all issues by Raul. That is not the satisfactory beginning of a negotiation. [Even Beijing occasionally throws a political prisoner as a fish to a visiting U.S. VIP! And only 18 months ago the Cuban regime had a new razzia throwing hundreds of new political prisoners into its notorious jails.]
In Asia, the Obama Administration’s first adventure in “negotiation” has already come a cropper. It sent poor, beleaguered Japanese Prime Minister, obviously against his better judgment, to negotiate with Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao on what action the UN Security Council should take against North Korea’s latest flaunting of UN mandates to fly an intercontinental ballistic missile. It was a negotiation to dynamite a stalemate at the Council where China threatened to veto any really meaningful resolution. The development of such missiles by a regime which has repeatedly violated every norm of international peace and stability — and flaunted earlier UN resolutions. It was a threat to American national security. Aso proposed for the Americans to the Chinese — Tokyo had wanted the imposition of new economic sanctions at least — that a watered-down UN Security Council resolution [are there any other kind?] would through Beijing’s auspices bring Pyongyang back to the [so far] fruitless negotiating table. Beijing concurred, or seemed to. But the response was not the one anticipated: Pyongyang instantly said it would never [never is never never in North Korean] return to the negotiating table — and furthermore, told the American inspectors-in-waiting to pack their bags. Now does Washington send Sec. of State Hillary Clinton to Pyongyang to a tea dance with Kim Jong-Il as the Clinton Administrator sent then Sec. Madeleine Albright? Might that not be the beginning of a new “negotiation”?
The negotiating process is one of the oldest of mankind’s activities. It is a complex affair. Setting the stage is often as important as the negotiations themselves. [Remember the many-cornered table for the beginning of the negotiations on ending the Vietnam War which, of course, was a cover for more elaborate early soundings by both sides.]
Obama introduces the atmospherics of a young, fresh but highly inexperience participant. That’s the beginning of a negotiation, but, at best, only the beginning that may set the stage. Better that he take it a bit slower. As with Gertrude Stein’s rose, the essence of the activity is the activity itself. Plunging into it without forethought — and foresight — is an invitation to disaster.
________________________________________
Sol W. Sanders, (solsanders@cox.net), is an Asian specialist with more than 25 years in the region, and a former correspondent for Business Week, U.S. News & World Report and United Press International. He writes weekly for World Tribune.com and East-Asia-Intel.com.

Advertisements

Somali Jihadist Pirates…Barbary Jihadist Pirates The more things change the more they stay the same

Somali Jihadist Pirates…Barbary Jihadist Pirates
The more things change the more they stay the same

One of the arguments made by those enamored with political correctness is that growing Islamist militancy directed at the United States is a result of our Middle East policies.

Now that Somali jihadist pirates have increased their attacks to merit a regular place in the evening news, it is useful to take a quick look back at history – and the role Barbary jihadist pirates played in the development of the U.S. Navy.

Two hundred years ago the U.S. had no “Middle East policy” for Islamists to quarrel with. Our foreign policy then was decidedly isolationist. Yet for some reason, for four decades, the so-called “Barbary Pirates” raided American shipping, kidnapped and murdered American citizens, and in general wreaked havoc on our country.

Knowledgeable historians, who aren’t tied up in the knots of political correctness, understand why the Barbary Pirates did what they did – they were jihadists. As are the Somali pirates today. So why is so much of the world media avoiding stating this fact?

Those Who Ignore History Are Condemned – Somali Piracy in Context

by D.L. Adams

On April 6 in an address to the parliament of Turkey, US President Obama said that the relationship between the United States and the “Muslim world” is an important one. “In fact, our partnership with the Muslim world is critical,” the president said. During the same address the President stated, “We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over so many centuries to shape the world for the better, including my own country.” Mr. Obama neglected to explain in what way(s) Islam has the shaped and improved the United States. The founding fathers of the United States did not share Mr. Obama’s appreciation for the “Islamic faith”. In fact Jefferson, Adams, JQ Adams, and Benjamin Franklin were all were deeply concerned about the dangers that Islam represented to the new nation. Our ongoing experiences with the 21st century version of the Barbary pirates off the coast of Somalia, most recently today when an American freighter captain was freed from pirate captivity by the US Navy, illustrates a great deal about our prior relations with the “religion of peace” and how our previous leaders reacted. There is little discussion in the mainstream press about the link between Somali Islamism, piracy, and jihad, but the linkage is there nonetheless.

In spite of the news media distancing the recent attack on a cruise ship off the coast of Somalia from global terrorism, intelligence experts believe this is just the latest operation initiated against the United States and the West by Al-Qaeda. (source)

The irony perhaps is that Islam did in fact play a very important role in the early stages of the development of the United States – Islam was directly responsible for the development of the United States Navy and for the concepts that allowed for its deployment far from our coasts. The American Navy is not a river navy or coastal defense force; it is a global tool of American power whose origins can be traced directly back to an earlier American-Islam confrontation. After the American Revolution, pirates from the Barbary states (Algiers, Morcoco) attacked American shipping off the coast of North Africa in the Mediterranean and took the crews. This piracy against American shipping started in 1784 and finally ended in 1815. The Islamic rulers of these Barbary States demanded payment of tribute from the new country and it was paid, and paid. President Jefferson sent a naval force against the pirates in 1803-05. The Marine Corps were also sent in and after a long overland march, took the city of Tripoli in 1805 (thus “to the shores of Tripoli” in the Marine Corps hymn). Is the Somali piracy of today related to the Barbary pirates of the early 19th century? When then Ambassadors Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met with the Ambassador from Tripoli in 1785, to reach a solution to the attacks against American shipping and crews they were dragged into a dark world in which we are still today.

“When they inquired by what right the Barbary states preyed upon American shipping, enslaving both crews and passengers, America’s two foremost envoys were informed that “it was written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.” (Source) The Barbary piracy was based upon the doctrine of Islam, calling for endless war against the unbeliever everywhere, including at sea.

To Muslims in the heyday of Barbary piracy, there were, at least in principle, only two forces at play in the world: the Dar al-Islam, or House of Islam, and the Dar al-Harb, or House of War. The House of Islam meant Muslim governance and the unrivaled authority of the sharia, Islam’s complex system of holy law. The House of War was simply everything that fell outside of the House of Islam — that area of the globe not under Muslim authority, where the infidel ruled. For Muslims, these two houses were perpetually at war — at least until mankind should finally embrace Allah and his teachings as revealed through his prophet, Mohammed.

Today, we are dealing with the same Islam. Islam is considered perfect, unchangable, unchallengable, by adherents. It is the perfect word of the perfect Allah, and carried to the world by the perfect example of humanity for all Muslims to emulate, Mohammed. History has returned, again.

“The Barbary pirates were not a “radical” or “fundamentalist” sect that had twisted religious doctrine for power and politics, or that came to recast aspects of their faith out of some form of insanity. They were simply a North African warrior caste involved in an armed jihad — a mainstream Muslim doctrine. This is how the Muslims understood Barbary piracy and armed jihad at the time, and, indeed, how the physical jihad has been understood since Mohammed revealed it as the prophecy of Allah.”

If the United States was unable to fight the pirates, they would be forced to continue to pay extortion to the Barbary States, a kind of high seas jizya. Jefferson immediately determined to fight. When he became president he was able to implement the plans that he had formulated after diplomacy to resolve Barbary piracy had failed. And are we not in the same position now? During a phone conversation with a journalist prior to the attack against them by US Navy SEALs to free the captured American sailor, one of the Somali jihadist/pirates said, “We never kill people. We are Muslims. We are marines, coastguards — not pirates,” one said. Not quite marines, not quite coastguard, at least not in the American sense of the terms.

Paying the ransom would only lead to further demands, Jefferson argued in letters to future presidents John Adams, then America’s minister to Great Britain, and James Monroe, then a member of Congress. As Jefferson wrote to Adams in a July 11, 1786, letter, “I acknolege [sic] I very early thought it would be best to effect a peace thro’ the medium of war.” Paying tribute will merely invite more demands, and even if a coalition proves workable, the only solution is a strong navy that can reach the pirates, Jefferson argued in an August 18, 1786, letter to James Monroe: “The states must see the rod; perhaps it must be felt by some one of them. . . . Every national citizen must wish to see an effective instrument of coercion, and should fear to see it on any other element than the water. A naval force can never endanger our liberties, nor occasion bloodshed; a land force would do both.” “From what I learn from the temper of my countrymen and their tenaciousness of their money,” Jefferson added in a December 26, 1786, letter to the president of Yale College, Ezra Stiles, “it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them.” (source)

When he became the 3rd President, Jefferson took action, and the United States Navy was sent to deal with the Barbary Coast pirates, which they did.

When Jefferson became president in 1801 he refused to accede to Tripoli’s demands for an immediate payment of $225,000 and an annual payment of $25,000. The pasha of Tripoli then declared war on the United States. Although as secretary of state and vice president he had opposed developing an American navy capable of anything more than coastal defense, President Jefferson dispatched a squadron of naval vessels to the Mediterranean. As he declared in his first annual message to Congress: “To this state of general peace with which we have been blessed, one only exception exists. Tripoli, the least considerable of the Barbary States, had come forward with demands unfounded either in right or in compact, and had permitted itself to denounce war, on our failure to comply before a given day. The style of the demand admitted but one answer. I sent a small squadron of frigates into the Mediterranean. . . .”

We can trace the development of the US Navy directly to Thomas Jefferson’s interaction with jihadist pirates. President Obama was right about the “Islamic faith” having “done so much over the centuries to shape the world — including in my own country,” but probably not in the way that he had intended. The development of our national defense capabilities are fundamentally linked with an American conflict with Islam in 1805. John Quincy Adams didn’t have to deal with the Barbary States directly as president, but his father John Adams did. Considered one of the most brilliant men to sit in the White House, JQ Adams is particularly perceptive about Islam. His warnings on the matter ring as true today as they did more than 100 years ago. The Islam that Adams discusses is the same Islam we see today.

John Quincy Adams possessed a remarkably clear, uncompromised understanding of the permanent Islamic institutions of jihad war and dhimmitude. Regarding jihad, Adams states in his essay series,

Confirming Adams’ assessment, the late Muslim scholar, Professor Majid Khadduri, wrote the following in his authoritative 1955 treatise on jihad, War and Peace in the Law of Islam :

“Thus the jihad may be regarded as Islam’s instrument for carrying out its ultimate objective by turning all people into believers, if not in the prophethood of Muhammad (as in the case of the dhimmis), at least in the belief of God. …The universality of Islam, in its all embracing creed, is imposed on the believers as a continuous process of warfare, psychological and political if not strictly military.”3 source

There is a certain bizarre justice here that our Navy ships were on hand to effect the release of an American ship captain through military action against Somali pirates likely affiliated with Islamism because of events that occurred with other Islamist pirates more than 200 years ago. When you hear in the mainstream press pundits and commentators saying that the Somali piracy is “unprecedented”, don’t believe it because it is not so. And don’t believe that our current struggle with political Islam is also unprecedented. This is a conflict of 1400 years. Since 9/11 some of us have accepted this truth. Long before our generation, other Americans struggled with similar matters. Our founding fathers fought the jihadists of the Barbary States and came to know Islam through their jihad against innocent unbelievers. By 1830 John Quincy Adams had not forgotten the lesson. We must learn the same lesson again; then, never forget it. Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. If we today choose to ignore the lessons of history we are simply condemned – we will have no opportunity to repeat.

“In the seventh century of the Christian era a wandering Arab, of the lineage of Hagar, the Egyptian, combing the powers of transcendent genius with the preternatural energy of a fanatic and the fraudulent spirit of an imposter, proclaimed himself as a messenger from heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth.

Adopting, from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God, he connected indissolubly with it the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war as part of his religion against all the rest of mankind. The essence of his doctrine was violence and lust; to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of human nature.

Between these two religions, thus contrasted in the characters, a war of more than twelve hundred years has already raged. That war is yet flagrant; nor can it cease but by the extincture of that imposture, which has been permitted by Providence to prolong the degeneracy of man. While the merciless and dissolute are encouraged to furnish motives to human action, there never can be peace on earth and good will toward men. The hand of Ishmael will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him.” John Adams, 1830

–John Quincy Adams, “Christianity—Islamism.” “Unsigned essays dealing with the Russo-Turkish War, and on Greece,” originally published in The American Annual Register for 1827—1829 (New York, 1830), Chs. X-XIV: 267—402. (source)

First published in the ACT West Nashville: http://actwestnashville.com/

——————————————————————————————-

ACT for America
P.O. Box 12765
Pensacola, FL 32591
www.actforamerica.org


The real story of Obama’s decision making with the hostages off Somalia

The real story of Obama’s decision making with the hostages off Somalia

AH, now it comes out: Having spoken to some SEAL pals here in Virginia Beach yesterday and asking why this thing dragged out for 4 days, I got the following:

1. BHO wouldn’t authorize the DEVGRU/NSWC SEAL teams to the scene for 36 hours going against OSC (on scene commander) recommendation.

2. Once they arrived, BHO imposed restrictions on their ROE that they couldn’t do anything unless the hostage’s life was in “imminent” danger

3. The first time the hostage jumped, the SEALS had the raggies all sighted in, but could not fire due to ROE restriction

4. When the navy RIB came under fire as it approached with supplies, no fire was returned due to ROE restrictions. As the raggies were shooting at the RIB, they were exposed and the SEALS had them all dialed in.

5. BHO specifically denied two rescue plans developed by the Bainbridge CPN and SEAL teams

6. Bainbridge CPN and SEAL team CDR finally decide they have the OpArea and OSC authority to solely determine risk to hostage. 4 hours later, 3 dead raggies

7. BHO immediately claims credit for his “daring and decisive” behaviour. As usual with him, it’s BS.

Read the following accurate account.

Philips’ first leap into the warm, dark water of the Indian Ocean hadn’t worked out as well. With the Bainbridge in range and a rescue by his country’s Navy possible, Philips threw himself off of his lifeboat prison, enabling Navy shooters onboard the destroyer a clear shot at his captors — and none was taken.

The guidance from National Command Authority — the president of the United States, Barack Obama — had been clear: a peaceful solution was the only acceptable outcome to this standoff unless the hostage’s life was in clear, extreme danger.

The next day, a small Navy boat approaching the floating raft was fired on by the Somali pirates — and again no fire was returned and no pirates killed. This was again due to the cautious stance assumed by Navy personnel thanks to the combination of a lack of clear guidance from Washington and a mandate from the commander in chief’s staff not to act until Obama, a man with no background of dealing with such issues and no track record of decisiveness, decided that any outcome other than a “peaceful solution” would be acceptable.

After taking fire from the Somali kidnappers again Saturday night, the on-scene-commander decided he’d had enough.

Keeping his authority to act in the case of a clear and present danger to the hostage’s life and having heard nothing from Washington since yet another request to mount a rescue operation had been denied the day before, the Navy officer — unnamed in all media reports to date — decided the AK47 one captor had leveled at Philips’ back was a threat to the hostage’s life and ordered the NSWC team to take their shots.

Three rounds downrange later, all three brigands became enemy KIA and Philips was safe.

There is upside, downside, and spinside to the series of events over the last week that culminated in yesterday’s dramatic rescue of an American hostage.

Almost immediately following word of the rescue, the Obama administration and its supporters claimed victory against pirates in the Indian Ocean and [1] declared that the dramatic end to the standoff put paid to questions of the inexperienced president’s toughness and decisiveness.

Despite the Obama administration’s (and its sycophants’) attempt to spin yesterday’s success as a result of bold, decisive leadership by the inexperienced president, the reality is nothing of the sort. What should have been a standoff lasting only hours — as long as it took the USS Bainbridge and its team of NSWC operators to steam to the location — became an embarrassing four day and counting standoff between a ragtag handful of criminals with rifles and a U.S. Navy warship.

FBI spied on TEA Party Americans

FBI spied on TEA Party Americans

Exclusive to the Northeast Intelligence Network & Canada Free Press

Douglas J. Hagmann, Director & Judi McLeod, Founding Editor, Canada Free Press

cover041919 April 2009: Even as average Americans were planning to get out in towns and cities to demonstrate against Big Government and Big Taxes, Federal Bureau of Intelligence Investigation (FBI) surveillance was being unleashed upon them.  In fact, unsuspecting Tax Day TEA Party participants were being closely watched during the demonstration planning stages in a covert operation that began on or about March 23, 2009.

If you one of the estimated 750,000 Americans who attended one of about 600 TEA parties last week, you might have seen media cameras covering the event. Media cameras, however, were not the only cameras taking video at these events, something  that  has at least one current FBI agent concerned over the future of America. According to this agent – the same agent who provided the Northeast Intelligence Network (NEIN) exclusively the unreleased photographs of the 11 missing Egyptian students who were the subject of a FBI BOLO in August 2006–placed his concerns for true patriots of the U.S. over his own career when he confided that covert surveillance was “planned and performed” at each of the TEA parties that took place last Tuesday.

“Listen to what I am saying,” stated the source during an interview with Doug Hagmann,  founder (NEIN).  “The Department of Homeland Security Intelligence Assessment that is receiving so much attention is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg, and the true patriotic citizens of this country are on the Titanic. This is what bothers me. But is goes far beyond that assessment. There have been very significant changes made over the last few years that redirect the focus and assets of the intelligence community internally. These changes have greatly accelerated under this administration, and the threats have been redefined to include those who used to be patriots. It’s not only chilling but absolutely insulting to God-fearing Americans.”

According to this unimpeachable source, a single-page confidential directive issued by the FBI headquarters in Washington, DC (FBIHQ) was sent to each of the 56 field offices located across the United States on or about March 23, 2009, instructing the Special Agents in Charge (SACs) of those offices to verify the date, time and location of each TEA Party within their region and supply that information to FBI headquarters in Washington. The source stated this correspondence termed the TEA parties “political demonstrations,” and added that the dissemination of the directive was very tightly controlled. “Not all agents were privy to this correspondence,” stated the source, who compared the dissemination to an older “Do Not File” classification.

In addition to obtaining or confirming the location and time of each “demonstration,” each field office was instructed to obtain or confirm the identity of the individual(s) involved in the actual planning and coordination of the event in each specific region, and include the local or regional Internet web site address, if any.  The information collected by region was then reportedly sent to FBI Headquarters.

The source alleges that a second directive was issued on or about  April 6,  2009 that reportedly instructed each SAC to coordinate and conduct, either at the field office level and/or with the appropriate resident agency, covert video surveillance and data collection of the participants of the TEA parties.  Surveillance was to be performed from “discreet fixed or mobile positions” and was to be performed “independently and outside of the purview of local law enforcement.”

Although the level of detail collected from each operation is unclear, the information was reportedly submitted to Washington, where, “at the level of the National Security Branch (NSB), this information was to “include the office of the Directorate of Intelligence (DI), and integrated with a restricted access database, one that reportedly is accessible to only two agencies” [of the 14 agencies that comprise the U.S. intelligence community, according to the source.

“The implications to the citizens of the U.S. are ominous. It seems that there is a hostile political agenda coming from Washington that characterizes the supporters of our constitutional freedoms as threats to our domestic security, which is totally absurd. The redirection, the refocusing of domestic threats from al Qaeda cells to ‘flag waving right-wingers’ is something that has gone from a murmur a few years ago to a roar today.”

Training government-issued cameras on ordinary citizens,  many of whom brought their children to an estimated 600 Tax Day TEA Parties is a page torn out of George Orwell’s 1984  and makes the term “God Bless America” more meaningful than ever.

The Northeast Intelligence Network and Canada Free Press expect the

Department of Hopeless Speculation

Department of Hopeless Speculation

By Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com | 4/20/2009

ALTHOUGH MUCH COMMENTARY HAS BEEN WRITTEN ON THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY’s recent report insulting veterans and conservatives, it overlooks the victim of the paper’s most obvious insult: its reader’s intellegence. The DHS report not only assumes veterans are a violence-prone group readily influenced by “rightwing” extremism but contains more consequential faults. It misdiagnoses the most likely source of terrorism and misconstrues the forces that lead to “anti-government” attacks, actually stoking the fears that fuel them.

Most pundits have focused on the report’s statements about veterans or the sentence in the “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” that holds “extremism” may “include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.” DHS chief Janet Napolitano told Fox and Friends‘ Steve Doocy, “If there’s one part of that report I would rewrite, in the word-smithing, Washington-ese that goes on after the fact, it would be that footnote.” Like Jane Fonda’s various non-apologies, Napolitano’s words do little to atone for the most significant errors in the report.

That is unfortunate, because Napolitano has much for which to apologize.

The most alarming part in this author’s mind is not so much the statements about veterans or conservatives — offensive as they are — but the report’s conclusion: “DHS/I&A assesses that lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States.”

The last eight years have proven there is a far more dangerous religio-political worldview than white supremacy. This report overlooks such homegrown examples as the Lackawanna Six, Miami’s Liberty City Seven, the Fort Dix jihadists, John Walker Lindh, al-Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadahn, etc.

The most recent “war veteran” involved in terror was John Allen Muhammad, the D.C. sniper and convert to the Nation of Islam, who attended the Million Man March.The media universally reported merely that he was “a Gulf War veteran,” leaving his Muslim beliefs virtually unexplored. His co-conspirator, Lee Boyd Malvo, has testified that Muhammad planned the sniping as part of a vast campaign to recruit homeless black orphans for a continent-wide snipers’ jihad. Significantly, Malvo has displayed his own pattern of Islamist aggression.

Indeed, Napolitano will not need to keep tabs on Capt. Christopher Seifert, who was murdered in Kuwait by Sgt. Asan Akbar, a black convert to Islam who waged jihad against his fellow Americans overseas.

Two months ago, JihadWatch Director Robert Spencer noted the existence of 35 jihad training centers on U.S. soil. Even European bombings showed the domestic character of “native” domestic terrorists.

Yet the Obama administration’s DHS has turned its focus inward. Having banished the use of terms like “terrorism” and “jihad,” it now shifts the department’s focus from Islam to white supremacists — the last logical step in PC counterterrorism.

This would be somewhat less galling if it demonstrated any understanding whatsoever of what leads white supremacists to attack. Although the Left encourages us to ponder why Muslims hate us around the world, it seems less introspective about its own citizens. Its feckless analysis of “anti-government” terrorism claims “rightwing extremists during the 1990s exploited a variety of social issues” including “abortion, inter-racial crimes, and same-sex marriage.” Of course, same sex “marriage” played no whatsoever role in Oklahoma City, the Minuteman standoff, the formation of any militia, or any “rightwing” (that is, national socialist) recruitment. In fact, same-sex marriage was hardly a political issue until the last few years — and then after San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom violated the law. When the issue came up at all during the 1990s, it was to brand traditionalists as paranoid bumpkins for thinking such a thing would ever take place.

The report shows its greatest oversight in sweeping under the rug the galvanizing effect the government’s misdeeds had in creating the militia movement — especially the BATF’s assault on Ruby Ridge and the standoff at Waco. The DHS’s historical fiction ignores the stated motivation of the deadliest domestic terrorist, Timothy McVeigh, calling him an example of the “small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war.” The report did not specify the psychological effects he or other veterans may have encountered during the 100-hour Gulf war. (The thrill of victory?)

Timothy McVeigh bombed the Murrah Federal Building on the second anniversary of the Waco standoff — which ended exactly 16 years ago yesterday. McVeigh traveled to Waco during the siege, and made pilgrimage to the remains of Ruby Ridge long after its bloody resolution.

The latter had more to do with making militias palatable than former military service, immigration, abortion, or same-sex marriage. No less a self-appointed authority on “rightwing terrorism” than Morris Dees wrote, “Ruby Ridge ignited the militia movement.” (Gathering Storm: America’s Militia Threat. (NY: HarperCollins, 1996), p. 69.)

BATF agents arrived — by the Weavers’ account, unannounced — in the middle of the night of August 21, 1992, and in short order killed Randy Weaver’s14-year-old son Sammy, by shooting him in the back. Sharpshooter Lon Horiuchi later shot and killed Vicki Weaver as she cradled her infant daughter in her arms. (His intended targets, Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris, were fleeing to their cabin; he apparently intended to shoot them in the back, as well. Horiuchi would later be dispatched to the Branch Davidian standoff.) The family later won a multimillion dollar settlement.

It also supercharged the paranoia of the militia movement. Dees and others claim a meeting of white supremacists called two months later in Estes Park, Colorado, as a response to the Weaver shootings gave birth to the militia movement. Whether this meeting proved as formative as Dees claims, Ruby Ridge proved a boon for radicals. The 1992 extremist presidential candidacy of Lt. Col. James “Bo” Gritz, who helped negotiate Weaver’s peaceful surrender, received more than 10,000 votes in Idaho, five times as many votes as in Gritz’s native Nevada. Ruby Ridge and the tragedy of Waco helped create an environment in which people came to believe the federal government was out-of-control — and led some to believe joining a militia was an act of self-defense. Those events stoked extant paranoia and led directly to Timothy McVeigh’s “act of war” against the United States 14 years ago yesterday.

All this is curiously missing from the government’s report. It makes only one, clipped reference to Ruby Ridge and Waco at the end of page five, at the end of a list of “rightwing” grievances, while spending far more time casting aspersions at honorable military service and traditional morality.

Those tragic federal interventions (at least one of them, criminal) exacerbated distrust of the feds, lending credence to the words of the genuinely paranoid. With this report, history may be repeating itself. A poster on Stormfront.org, the internet’s premier white supremacist website, greeted the news by writing, “I’m actually kind of glad they did release that report the way they did. Along with the media dismissing and calling the tea party protesters racists, it’s bound to piss a lot of people off, and maybe they will start to realize what’s happening in our Country.” (The following post referred to the Thomas More Law Center as “hippy jew law goons.”)

Napolitano played into the fringe’s hands. When a government agency claims everyone who opposes abortion or gay marriage is a potential terrorist, it lends credibility to radical ravings that the government is at war with its people, or at a minimum regards the majority of its citizens, which reject leftism, as suspect. That makes mainstream Americans more susceptible to anarchist recruitment and potential radicalization.

The threat of white supremacists is a real concern which deserves careful analysis. Unfortunately, this DHS report not only overlooks the real source of domestic terrorism but, through broad-brush painting, makes a domestic anarchist attack more likely.


Ben Johnson is Managing Editor of FrontPage Magazine and co-author, with David Horowitz, of the book Party of Defeat. He is also the author of the book 57 Varieties of Radical Causes: Teresa Heinz Kerry’s Charitable Giving.