RUTHFULLY YOURS

With the death of Jihadi John less than two weeks ago in a Raqqa airstrike, the Islamic State lost one of the most recognizable masked men of their P.R. jihad: an executioner who would introduce the West to murder ISIS-style, an English-speaking killer eager to behead Americans and Brits.

But even before the passing of Kuwait-born, London-raised Mohammed Emwazi, ISIS had incorporated other English-speakers into their videos — with American or Canadian accents.

And unlike some of the Jihadi John videos where the knife-wielding Emwazi isn’t shown actually beheading his victims, a recent ISIS video shows a masked American beheading a Kurdish prisoner.

An ISIS member with an American accent tells President Obama they’re beheading Peshmerga prisoners in revenge for airstrikes.
The Peshmerga Killer

This fair-skinned jihadi appeared at the end of a late October video that was mostly in Arabic, spoken by a narrator walking through the decimated compound near Hawija, Iraq, where Kurdish and U.S. forces rescued dozens of Iraqi prisoners facing imminent death.

Then the 15-minute video cut to four Peshmerga prisoners in orange jumpsuits kneeling before the rubble, and the black-clad killers wielding knives behind each Kurd.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) styles itself as America’s largest Muslim civil rights advocacy group. Its executive director, Nihad Awad, recently took advantage of a reporter’s inflammatory article on a likely miscommunication with a presidential candidate to tweet to his English audience, “Exactly what #ISIS wants: #DonaldTrump’s recent call to force American Muslims to carry special ID.”

Moments later, Awad more directly reflected CAIR’s real status as a front for the radical Islamist Muslim Brotherhood when in Arabic he expanded upon those comments to compare the U.S. to Nazi Germany. The IPT translated the comments:

“It actually happened. The Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is calling for forcing American Muslims to carry ID’s classifying them on the basis of their religion. Exactly like Hitler did.”

The timing could have been worse, but not by much. Exactly one month before the Nov. 13 attacks in Paris, a federal appeals court reopened a discrimination lawsuit filed against New York City over a counterterrorism program begun in the wake of 9/11.

The 2001 World Trade Center attack was the second time the buildings had been hit in eight years—a car bomb was detonated underneath the complex in 1993, killing six and injuring more than 1,000. Follow-up plots to bomb the George Washington Bridge, the United Nations and the FBI’s New York office were thwarted by an informant who had infiltrated the terrorists. But after 9/11, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly stepped up the city’s offense against Islamic extremists bent on killing innocent Americans.

Among other things, the New York Police Department developed a Counterterrorism Bureau that collaborated with law-enforcement agencies throughout the U.S. and around the world. Most of the conspirators in the 1993 and 2001 attacks came from places like Egypt, Lebanon, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. They settled in Arabic-speaking neighborhoods in New York City and New Jersey, where some were radicalized in mosques and through Islamic organizations. The NYPD has long used confidential informants to infiltrate the mafia, gangs and drug rings, and it determined that an effective way to stop future terror attacks would be to employ the same tactics. Thus a so-called Demographics Unit was created in 2003 to identify specific “venues of radicalization” and “locations of concern” and provide early warning of any terrorist activity.

On the eve of Thanksgiving, Americans are not in a particularly thankful mood. That’s the conclusion I draw from the latest Pew Research center study of our attitude toward government.

Trust in government is near historic lows. Yet our expectations from government are very high. Diminished trust and elevated hope yield the dominant sentiment of this presidential election year—not anger, but rather profound frustration.

The research I’ve just summarized applies to both political parties. It isn’t exactly news that Democrats see a major role for government in most areas. But so do majorities of Republicans in 10 of the 13 areas covered in Pew’s study. Nor is it news that 57% of Republicans are frustrated with government. But so are 59% of Democrats.

Americans are critical of their elected officials. Only 23% say that our leaders care what people like me think; only 22% see these officials as putting the country’s interests ahead of their own; only 19% think that they try hard to stay in touch with the voters. Overall, Americans regard their elected officials as intelligent but selfish and dishonest.

Insidiously and inadvertently, Barack Obama is alienating the people and moving the country to the right. If he keeps it up, by 2017 it will be a reactionary nation. But, counterintuitive as it seems, that is fine with Obama: Après nous le déluge.

By sheer force of his personality, Obama has managed to lose the Democratic Senate and House. State legislatures and governorships are now predominantly Republican. Obama’s own favorable ratings rarely top 45 percent. In his mind, great men, whether Socrates or Jesus, were never appreciated in their time. So it is not surprising that he is not, as he presses full speed ahead.

Obama certainly has doubled down going into his last year, most recently insisting on letting in more refugees from the Middle East, at a time when the children of Middle Eastern immigrants and contemporary migrants are terrorizing Europe. What remaining unpopular executive acts might anger his opponents the most? Close down Guantanamo, let thousands more refugees into the United States, free thousands more felons, snub another ally, flatter another enemy, weigh in on another interracial melodrama, extend amnesty to another million illegal aliens, make global warming laws by fiat, expand Obamacare, unilaterally impose gun control? In lieu of achievement, is the Obama theory to become relevant or noteworthy by offending the public and goading political enemies?

An Obama press conference is now a summation of all his old damn-you clichés — the fantasy strawman arguments; the caricatures of the evil Republican bogeymen; the demagogic litany of the sick, the innocent, and the old at the mercy of his callous opponents; the affected accentuation (e.g., Talîban; Pakîstan, Îslám, Latînos, etc.) that so many autodidacts parade in lieu of learning foreign languages; the make-no-mistake-about-it and let-me-be-clear empty emphatics; the flashing temper tantrums; the mangled sports metaphors; the factual gaffes; and the monotonous I, me, my, and mine first-person-pronoun exhaustion. What Obama cannot do in fact, he believes he can still accomplish through invective and derision.

In the wake of the horrific November 13th terror attacks in Paris, coming on the heels of the downing of the Russian Metrojet airliner on October 31, 2015 in Egypt, many of America’s political leaders are finally coming to the inevitable realization that we need to be careful as to who we let into the United States because of the clear and present danger posed by ISIS and other terror organizations.

However, even as many of these very same politicians insist that the United States suspend the admission of Syrian Refugees until and unless the vetting process by which these aliens are screened is truly effective and has integrity, they continue to support plans to provide unknown millions of illegal aliens who entered our country surreptitiously without inspection with lawful status.

These “leaders” describe illegal aliens as being “undocumented immigrants,” using language that is “politically correct,” but actually Orwellian and constitutes a deceptive and dangerous example of Newspeak.

To provide a bit of essential clarity, the difference between an immigrant and an illegal alien is comparable to the difference between a houseguest and a burglar.

Often the politicians repeat the false mantra, “We are fighting them (terrorists) over there so that we will not have to fight them over here.” In point of fact, we are most definitely fighting them “over here.” The terrorists who attacked our nation on September 11, 2001 carried out those deadly attacks inside the United States. The Boston Marathon bombing was obviously carried out inside the United States, as were other attacks that were perpetrated or attempted by still other terrorists.

Syria is a terror state. It didn’t become that way overnight because of the Arab Spring or the Iraq War.

Its people are not the victims of American foreign policy, Islamic militancy or any of the other fashionable excuses. They supported Islamic terrorism. Millions of them still do.

They are not the Jews fleeing a Nazi Holocaust. They are the Nazis trying to relocate from a bombed out Berlin.

These are the cold hard facts.

ISIS took over parts of Syria because its government willingly allied with it to help its terrorists kill Americans in Iraq. That support for Al Qaeda helped lead to the civil war tearing the country apart.

The Syrians were not helpless, apathetic pawns in this fight. They supported Islamic terrorism.

A 2007 poll showed that 77% of Syrians supported financing Islamic terrorists including Hamas and the Iraqi fighters who evolved into ISIS. Less than 10% of Syrians opposed their terrorism.

Why did Syrians support Islamic terrorism? Because they hated America.

“Liberal Parents, Radical Children,” was the title of a 1975 book by Midge Decter, which tried to make sense of how a generation of munificent parents raised that self-obsessed, politically spastic generation known as the Baby Boomers. The book was a case study in the tragedy of good intentions.

“We proclaimed you sound when you were foolish in order to avoid taking part in the long, slow, slogging effort that is the only route to genuine maturity of mind and feeling,” Miss Decter told the Boomers. “While you were the most indulged generation, you were also in many ways the most abandoned to your own meager devices.”

Meager devices came to mind last week while reading the “Statement of Solidarity” from Nancy Cantor, chancellor of the Newark, N.J., campus of Rutgers University. Solidarity with whom, or what? Well, Paris, but that was just for starters. Ms. Cantor also made a point of mentioning lives lost to terrorist attacks this year in Beirut and Kenya, and children “lost at sea seeking freedom,” and “lives lost that so mattered in Ferguson and Baltimore and on,” and “students facing racial harassment on campuses from Missouri to Ithaca and on.”