Category Archives: Islam

What Obama and ISIS Have in Common

obama isis
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

Sometimes Obama seems a lot more worried about ISIS’ social media presence than about its tens of thousands of fighters carving their way across Syria and Iraq. While there is still no strategy for defeating the Islamic State on the battlefield, the administration has focused on a social media strategy instead.

The most dangerous component of ISIS isn’t online, but its most dangerous component to Obama is. An administration that runs on social media and public perception is a lot more worried about what ISIS says online than how many people it enslaves, rapes and massacres in Iraq and Syria.

One of the things that makes ISIS very different from other Islamic terrorist groups is how good it is at reaching Americans with its propaganda. That makes its recruitment of Muslims in America more effective, but it also means that the administration is unable to shove the war into the closet.

Obama’s disastrous Afghan surge cost thousands of American lives without ever beating the Taliban. But few Americans have any idea that anything went wrong because of a media blackout and an inability by Republicans to make the war into an issue. Obama’s illegal attack on Libya led to Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood taking over entire cities. But most Americans have no idea it ever happened.

ISIS however is really great at publicity. It’s as good at promoting its latest crimes as any Hollywood studio. Ignoring it isn’t an option. Obama tried and it culminated in the Yazidi genocide.

His strategy for fighting ISIS ties together all his old failed strategies. There are the selective drone strikes targeting ISIS leaders. He’s trying to keep together the old Libyan coalition for air strikes while expecting other countries to once again do most of the heavy lifting. There are more efforts at assembling a coalition of Muslim militias. None of these strategies can work or will work.

The international coalition depends on Turkey, a sometime ally of ISIS, which is much more interested in killing the Kurds fighting ISIS, than in fighting the terror group. The Muslim militias he’s backing either work with Al Qaeda and ISIS or work for Iran. And selective drone strikes are more useful for stopping a terrorist group on the run than a burgeoning country that conquerors territory and controls cities.

Failure alone wouldn’t bother Obama. Every conflict on his watch has gone disastrously. But his failures are no longer private. They’re not closed off in wordy debates in the denser parts of newspapers.

Obama can’t run away from ISIS the way he has from every other disaster in the Middle East. And he can’t defeat it without authorizing bombing raids with high civilian casualties or ground forces. But he isn’t even willing to bomb ISIS training camps, let alone less obvious targets, so winning the war is out.

Hitting ISIS hard or bringing ground troops back to Iraq for extended armed battles would tarnish what he sees as his progressive foreign policy legacy. That leaves him with very few options.

Lying about ISIS has been a consistent administration strategy and the latest revelations about intelligence reports that were doctored to make it seem as if ISIS were weaker and the campaign against it was working fit that pattern. But the lies were also futile. Like Benghazi, doctoring documents makes no difference when there are graphic photos and videos of another attack that everyone can see.

But it does fit the larger Obama strategy of running out the clock and making ISIS into someone else’s problem. The illusion of progress, however false and weak, is better than nothing. Obama is betting that he can stall the public with misleading claims that progress is being made in a long war effort.

But to get away with it, he has to do something about the publicity machine of the Islamic State.

Obama and the Caliph of the Islamic State mirror each other. Both believe in a “Forward” strategy that smashes through the Overton window by violating any and all rules of the game.  Enemies are to be destroyed and rulebreaking is to be triumphantly normalized as the only way for the cause to win. Loyalty is pledged personally to the leader and even minor deviations by allies are ruthlessly punished.

Both also excel at social media propaganda. Obama and the Caliph are middle aged radicals surrounded by staffs filled with millenials to whom social media is second nature. Both sides have built a strategy of radicalization that is focused on turning out a narrow and passionately enthusiastic base while forcing everyone else to either accept their triumphs or scramble to engage in last minute resistance.

Obama’s base however limits itself to violent riots. It doesn’t behead people on camera.

Caliph al-Baghdadi has done for Islamic terrorism what Obama did for leftist politics. He took a creaky outdated infrastructure and modernized it and made it trendy. The Caliph of ISIS is to Osama bin Laden as Obama is to Bernie Sanders. In some ways he is Obama’s twin and that’s why Obama is losing to him.

Obama isn’t fighting a bunch of bearded relics in a cave somewhere. His opposite number shares much of his worldview. Obama and the Caliph both believe that wars are won by using publicity to create the illusion of an inevitable victory. Both men have built powerful publicity machines that crowdsource the distribution of their propaganda to volunteers to make it seem like an authentic grassroots message.

But it’s ISIS that has the momentum. Obama has always understood that doing something is more powerful than doing nothing. It’s why he has beaten Republicans so many times. But in Iraq and Syria, it’s ISIS that is aggressively moving forward while Obama struggles to create the appearance of action.

While Obama is unwilling to alienate Muslims and the left, the Islamic State has no such worries.

Obama can’t bring the war to ISIS. ISIS however has no difficulty recruiting Muslims in this country to bring the war to Americans. It doesn’t just do this with speeches or Islamic scripture, but with memes, hashtags and graphics that bypass the media to make the message clear to American audiences.

All this is typical of how Obama would wage a campaign against Republicans. And he has no defense against it because the momentum is on the side of the Islamic State. His hashtag war is defensive. So it’s no wonder that his own analysts admit that he’s even losing the social media war against ISIS.

The administration has been pressuring Twitter to shut down ISIS accounts and arresting ISIS propagandists because it can’t compete with them. It’s less concerned with terrorism than with the ability of ISIS to punch through and repeatedly remind Americans that the war isn’t over.

Obama’s ability to advance his foreign policy agenda, including the Iran nuclear deal, the Gitmo closure and a Palestinian state, depends on preventing Americans from realizing that ISIS is winning the war. Every time ISIS reminds Americans that it’s winning, his credibility and competence take another hit.

That’s why Obama is much more focused on taking out ISIS on social media than he is on beating their forces. Obama let ISIS take over Iraqi cities. He might be willing to let the Caliph have his Caliphate with its sex slaves and piles of corpses if only he would let Obama keep his memes and trending hashtags.

Obama and the Democrats Now Own Iran. They’ll Soon Wish They Didn’t


This morning, President Obama got what he’s been working toward all year. With Senator Barbara Mikulski’s announcement that she will vote to support the Iran nuclear deal, the administration got its 34th vote in the Senate, thus assuring that the president will have enough support to sustain a veto of a resolution of disapproval of the pact. Mikulski was just the latest of a number of Senate Democrats to throw in with the president on Iran. The only suspense now is whether Obama will get to 41 and thus have enough for a filibuster and prevent a vote on the deal from even taking place. Leaving aside the terrible damage the deal does to U.S. security and the stability of the Middle East, the most far-reaching effect of the deal is that from now on Democrats own Iran. From this moment forward, every act of Iranian-sponsored terrorism, every instance of Iranian aggression and adventurism as well as the Islamist regime’s inevitable march to a nuclear weapon can be laid at the feet of a Democratic Party. With a few exceptions, the Democrats fell meekly behind a president determined to prioritize détente with Iran over the alliance with Israel and the need to defend U.S. interests. By smashing the bipartisan consensus that had existed on Iran up until this year, the Democrats have, in effect, become the hostages of the ayatollahs. This is a decision that will haunt them in the years to come.

In analyzing the struggle that was ultimately won by Obama, it must first be acknowledged that the outcome was determined primarily by a mismatch in terms of the relative power of the two sides.

Though the Iran deal is a threat to U.S. security as well as to the interests of moderate Arab regimes who are as afraid of Tehran as Israel, the pro-Israel community, and AIPAC led the fight against the agreement. Though AIPAC can generally count on bipartisan support on any issue it cares about, it never had a prayer of beating an administration that was prepared to do and say anything to get its way. Once the president made clear that he considered the nuclear deal to be the centerpiece of his foreign policy legacy, the chances that even the pull of the pro-Israel community could persuade enough Democrats to sustain a veto override were slim and none. In order to achieve that victory, Obama had to sink to the level of gutter politics by smearing his critics as warmongers and slam AIPAC with the same sort of language that earned President George H.W. Bush opprobrium. But the president’s ability to twist the arms of most of the members of his own party to back him was never really in doubt. It was a defeat for AIPAC but not one that should impact its ability to continue to be effective on Capitol Hill.

It must also be noted that this outcome was only made possible by the utter stupidity and cowardice of key Republican leaders — especially Senator Bob Corker — that led to their agreement to a bill that reversed the treaty ratification process. The Corker-Cardin bill that gave Congress the right to vote on the deal was represented at the time as a bipartisan triumph but the Democrats were laughing up their sleeves the whole time. Instead of demanding that the president present the deal to Congress as a treaty, which would have required a two-thirds vote of approval, Obama was able to ram this awful deal down the throats of a reluctant country and Congress by only being able to have enough votes to sustain a veto. It would have been better for the country had the GOP stood on its ground on the treaty issue since that would have left Obama to pursue his original plan, which was to treat the deal as a simple agreement that required no Congressional action at all. At least then the deal would have been seen as another end run around the Constitution by a lawless president. Instead, he gets to pretend that Congress has ratified the deal when, in fact, large majorities oppose it in both the House and the Senate.

But the most important point to be gleaned from Obama’s seeming triumph is that he and his party now bear complete responsibility for Iran’s good conduct as well as its nuclear program.

Let’s remember that, up until this past winter, it could be argued that Congressional Democrats were as ardent about stopping Iran’s nuclear ambitions as the Republicans. Sanctions on Iran — that were opposed by the Obama administration — got overwhelming Democratic support with members of the party like Senator Robert Menendez leading the fight for them. Even tougher sanctions that were also opposed by the president last year also had the support of the vast majority of the Democratic caucuses in both the House and the Senate. Nor was there much enthusiasm among Democrats for the string of concessions that Obama made to Iran in the negotiations led up to the deal.

But once the president got close to achieving his goal of an entente with Iran, he set about the business of peeling away Democrats from that consensus position. To date only two in the Senate — Menendez and New York’s Chuck Schumer — resisted the pressure and even Schumer promised not to try and persuade other Democrats to join him. The power of the presidency and the threat of unleashing a wave of slander and perhaps primary opposition from the president’s left-wing admirers was enough to force Democrats into his camp.

The statements of support from each Democrat betrayed their lack of enthusiasm for a deal that all admitted wasn’t the triumph that Obama was crowing about. They know it doesn’t achieve the administration’s stated goal when the negotiations began of stopping Iran’s program. At best it postpones it for a decade or 15 years. Meanwhile Iran is allowed to continue research and keep its advanced infrastructure as well as the right to go on enriching uranium.

Just as important, the deal did nothing to rein in Iran’s support for terrorism, halt its ballistic missile building program (which shows that the U.S. and Europe are as much Tehran’s target as Israel) or halt its push for regional hegemony.

Obama and the Democrats now say they will get behind Israel and strengthen its defenses even though the deal makes Iran a threshold nuclear power almost immediately. That renders talk of preserving Israel’s qualitative military edge over potential foes meaningless.

But what this means is that every act of Iranian terror, every instance of Hamas and Hezbollah using Iranian funds and material to wage war against Israel or moves against Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states must now be seen as having been enabled not just by Obama but also by his party.

If Iran cheats its way to a bomb before the deal expires or uses the wealth that Obama is lavishing on it to get them to agree to this deal to undermine regional stability it won’t be possible in the future for Democrats to say that this was simply Obama’s folly. No, by docilely following his lead for a deal that few of them were eager to embrace, the entire Democratic Party must now pray that the president is right and that Iran will seek to “get right with the world” rather than pursuing a religious and ideological agenda of conflict with the West and Israel.

Obama got his deal despite the opposition of the majority of Congress and the American people. But the Democratic Party now gets to pay the bill for it. By making Iran a partisan issue in this manner, Obama saddled his party with the blame for everything that will happen in the coming years. Munich analogies are often inappropriate but when Rep. Patrick Murphy (the likely Democratic nominee for the Senate seat Marco Rubio is vacating next year) said the deal gives us “peace in our time,” his channeling of Neville Chamberlain was no ordinary gaffe. In the years to come when Obama is retired and Iran uses the deal to make new mischief and atrocities, Democrats may regret giving in to the president’s pressure. But, like the appeasers of the 1930s, the legacy of the pro-Iran deal Democrats is now set in stone.

Poisoning Afghan Schoolgirls


Arnold Ahlert//On Monday, as many as 126 teachers, schoolgirls and kindergartners were poisoned at the Habibul Mustafa School in Afghanistan’s western Herat province. Herat provincial hospital spokesman Muhammad Rafiq Sherzai revealed some of the victims were vomiting and some were unconscious when they were admitted, but that they were all in stable condition. “A health team has been sent to the area for investigations,” he added. Herat police spokesman Abdul Raouf Ahmadi said police have initiated an investigation, but no arrests have been made at this point. And while no group has claimed responsibility for the incident, the Taliban have a despicable track record of targeting school girls.

A 2001 State Department report titled “The Taliban’s War Against Women” reveals that the “assault on the status of women” began immediately after the group’s takeover of Kabul in 1996, following 20 years of civil war. The women’s university was closed, nearly every woman was forced to quit her job, access to medical care was restricted, and a restrictive dress code was brutally enforced. As many as 50,000 women who had worked as teachers, doctors, nurses, and clerical workers, because they had lost male relatives and husbands during the long civil war, were reduced to begging on the streets (or worse) to support their families. The Taliban also precipitated a campaign of violence against women that included rape, abduction, and forced marriage.

Beginning in 1998, girls over the age of 8 were prohibited from attending school.

The liberation of Afghanistan in 2001 changed that loathsome equation, but the Taliban continued to attack defenseless schoolgirls whenever the opportunity presented itself, especially in the neighboring country of Pakistan where many of them fled following their rout by US troops. A 2014 report by the Global Committee to Protect Education from Attack (GCPEA) reveals that Pakistan endured more than 838 school attacks from 2009 through 2012 that left hundreds of schools destroyed. “When the Pakistani Taliban did gain control of the Swat Valley, they first banned girls’ education and banned women from teaching, through an edict in December 2008, and later amended their edict to permit the education of girls, but only up to grade 4,” the report stated.

A June 2014 report by the International Crisis Group also illuminated the twisted rationale behind such efforts, explaining that the Taliban target educational institutions in general, and girls’ schools in particular, because they view education as the “promotion of Western decadence and un-Islamic teachings.” “Militant jihadi groups have destroyed buildings, closed girls’ schools and terrorised parents into keeping daughters at home,” the report added. “More than nine million children do not receive primary or secondary education, and literacy rates are stagnant.”

This overt viciousness remained largely under the media radar until Taliban gunmen attempted to assassinate education activist Malala Yousafzai, then 14, as she rode the bus to her Pakistani school in 2012. Yousafzai was hit in the head by a bullet that traveled down her neck. She was brought to a military hospital in Peshawar where a portion of her skull was removed to treat brain swelling before she was transferred to Birmingham, England. Following a painful recovery that included multiple surgeries, she continued to promote the right to an education, ultimately winning the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize following her second nomination for that honor.

Taliban savages made sure other children weren’t as lucky. On December 16, 2014, six Taliban terrorists massacred 132 children and nine staff members and wounded another 122, shooting their way through the Army Public School in Peshawar, Pakistan. The eight hour atrocity included burning a teacher to death in front of her students, and Pakistan’s Tehreek-e-Taliban claimed credit for it. Pakistan security expert Ahmed Rashid cited two reasons for the attack, including revenge for the Pakistani Army taking the fight to terrorists in the Taliban stronghold of North Waziristan, close to the Afghan border—and the accolades received by Yousafzai, who was “heartbroken by this senseless and cold-blooded act of terror in Peshawar.”

The poisoning in Herat follows a number of similar incidents that occurred beginning in April 2012 when 150 girls were poisoned by contaminated water, leaving some in critical condition at a high school in Afghanistan’s Takhar Province. A year later at a school in Taluqan, the capital of Takhar Province, 74 girls were hospitalized when they became ill after complaining about a gas smell. In May another 150 were hospitalized in Kabul after voicing similar complaints about the smell of gas and bad drinking water at the Sultan Razia school.

Two other incidents occurred in June. In Maimana, the capital of Faryab province, 77 girls were hospitalized due to suspected gas poisoning, followed by a similar incident the on same day in the town of Behsud, where 20 girls attending a local secondary school fell ill for unknown reasons.

In an April 2013 column for the New York Times, Kabul-based writer Matthieu Aikins insisted no one had been poisoned, citing “never-released reports showing that the United Nations, the World Health Organization and NATO’s International Security Assistance Force had investigated the incidents for years and had never found, despite extensive laboratory tests, any evidence of toxins or poisoning.” Rather the girls were victims of “mass hysteria.”

Perhaps. On the other hand, writer Andrea Ayres-Deets rightly takes Aikins to task, citing a UN report issued June 5, 2015. That report not only reveals the 185 documented attacks on schools in 2011 Ayres-Deets uses to mockingly pose the question, “Were all of those fabricated by scared school children too?”  but a 48 percent increase in “the killing and maiming of children in Afghanistan” to 2,502 in 2014. Moreover, there were 163 verified incidents of school attacks that same year, including ”28 incidents of placement of improvised explosive devices inside school premises.”

A total of 94 of those school attacks were attributed to the Taliban and other “armed groups.”

Unsurprisingly, very little of these ongoing attempts to mortgage the future of women in Afghanistan has received much attention from the American feminist movement or an Obama administration determined to abandon these girls to the Taliban and their equally savage Haqqani network allies, courtesy of the president’s vow to “end” the war before his term in office expires. “Afghanistan is still a dangerous place,” Obama said. “The way it’s going to become less dangerous is by Afghan security forces­ being capable of keeping law and order and security in the country, and that is not going to happen if foreign forces­ are continually relied upon.”

If that has a familiar ring, perhaps it’s because Obama said virtually the same thing about Iraq in 2011. “Iraq’s future will be in the hands of its people. America’s war in Iraq will be over” he stated.  “Now, Iraq is not a perfect place. It has many challenges ahead. But we’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people.”

One suspects the thousands of Yazidi women who have been systematically raped, tortured and sold into slavery by ISIS, who filled the vacuum left by Obama’s fecklessness, would heartily disagree. That would be the same President Obama who steadfastly refuses to acknowledge ISIS’s Muslim roots, even as ISIS leaders have enshrined their “theology of rape,” which has “become an established recruiting tool to lure men from deeply conservative Muslim societies, where casual sex is taboo and dating is forbidden,” as the New York Times puts it.

Beginning in July, the Afghan government began negotiating with the Taliban, despite the reality that in 2015, 4,000 Afghan soldiers and police have been killed, nearly 8,000 have been wounded, and the Taliban is making territorial gains. It follows the complete failure of negotiations by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2010, when the Taliban completely rejected her demands for disarmament, acceptance of the Afghan constitution, and cutting ties with Al Qaeda.

Comedian Jay Leno’s wife, Mavis, who chairs a committee of the Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF), a group dedicated to women’s equality, emphasized the grim reality that faces an Afghan government forced to negotiate with the Taliban before a U.S. withdrawal reduces what little leverage it has to zero. “I don’t believe (the Taliban) would consider themselves contractually, morally or in any other fashion bound by any agreements they made with us, or any of our allies,” she stated. “That is not their history and I don’t believe for one minute they are going to change because it’s their belief system.”

That assertion is well-founded. That it utterly eludes the Obama administration and its feminist allies—either by accident or design—is shameful.

Child Marriage in Iran

I was speaking recently with some Iranians on the ground in Iran when they told me about a recent wedding where a 14-year-old boy and 10-year-old girl got married. They argued that the religious government admires such marriages, and the trend is unfortunately increasing. The authorities of the Islamic Republic of Iran gave full permission for this marriage.

As the Iranians were telling me about a recent wedding, I was prepared to offer my congratulations until one of the men mentioned that it was between two young children.

Here are some photos of the marriage:

This is not an exception to the rule in the Islamic world or under the ruling of the religious clerics in the Islamic Republic. It happens all too often. Although Muslim scholars argue that marrying a 9-year-old girl was only completely acceptable more than 1000 years ago during the time of Prophet Muhammad, still tens of thousands of underage girls are being forced to get married in Iran and the number expands to hundreds of thousands in the entire Islamic world.

The Islamic Republic is only one country among dozens of other Islamic countries which have legalized and even encouraged under age marriages. This trend is reportedly on the rise instead of declining.  For example, there was a 59 percent increase in under-10 year old marriages in Iran in one year. Several parts of the Islamic Republic have experienced a dramatic growth in under-age marriages.

According to the Islamic Republic civil code, Iran’s constitution set the legal marriage age for girls at 13 and boys at 15. But the Iranian parliament’s legal affairs committee made several statements arguing that the Islamic Republic is attempting to lower the girl marriage age to 9. So, even though the above-mentioned marriage is illegal based on Iran’s civil code, the religious authorities allowed it.

Why is the government trying to lower the legal age of a girl to 9, rather than increase it? Isn’t age 9 even well before the child reaches puberty? All of these marriages are happening under the eyes of the so-called moderate president, Hassan Rouhani, whom President Obama seems to admire.

Even more abhorrent, the Islamic Republic previously passed a law that permitted men to marry their young adopted daughters.

Instead of focusing on crucial issues such as economics, gender rights, human rights, citizen rights and freedoms (speech, expression, assembly, etc), the government’s focus and time is spent on ensuring that grown men, and particularly the clergy, are capable of marrying a girl of any age they desire.

Of course as the Islamic belief in the Islamic Republic’s system dictates, the girl has no say in this marriage. With only her parents’ permission, she will be sent to another man’s house. She will go from innocent child to a wife overnight. Some of these marriages are arranged to settle financial debt or for other materialistic reasons.

Previously, Mohammad Ali Isfenani, the chairman for the legal affairs committee, said matter-of-factly: “As some people may not comply with our current Islamic legal system, we must regard 9 as being the appropriate age for a girl to have reached puberty and qualified to get married. To do otherwise would be to contradict and challenge Islamic Sharia law.”

Before the clergy came to power in Iran, the marriage laws of the nation were much more advanced and complied with international human rights and standards. After the revolution, there has been a steady trend to completely remove the rights of all women, increase patriarchy and ratchet up the clergy’s power over women, which serves to satisfy the ayatollahs and Imams’ sexual desires.

The justification that Ayatollah Khamenei and other Iranian religious leaders use for such terrible acts are either: This is what the Quran and Allah directed or this is what Muhammad did, as he married a 9-year-old girl.

This is exactly the same justification that the Islamic State is currently using to “legally” rape 9-year-old girls and slaughter thousands of people. I recommend you watch the Frontline documentary on the Islamic States taking Yazidi girls. Their acts are totally barbarous. The psychological and emotional difficulties that these girls go through is unimaginable.

According to this rising trend and according to the International Center for Research on Women, everyday approximately 25,000 girls under the age of 18 will be married. Other countries where this intolerable tradition occurs include Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Niger, Bangladesh, and India. UNICEF indicated that roughly 17 percent of girls are married under 18 in the Islamic Republic.

There is not even a right of consent for these girls against unwanted sex or becoming pregnant. Many of these girls die at a young age due to a pregnancy in a not yet fully developed body or childbirth difficulties.

A lot of girls who are forced into an underage marriage face grave psychological damage or even commit suicide. If they oppose the imposed decision to get married, the repercussions are swift and severe.  For example, an Iranian child bride faced execution for killing the man she was forced to marry. Razieh Ebrahimi was forced to marry at the age of 14. At the age of 15, she was a mother with a child. And at the age of 17 she killed her husband. Human Rights Watch urged the Islamic Republic’s judiciary to stop her execution.

The most important decision in a girl’s life, which will affect her for the rest of her years, is made by the government legal code and her brothers or parents. As Razieh Ebrahimi pointed out, “I married our neighbour’s son when I was only 14 because my dad insisted… My dad insisted I should marry him because he was educated and was working as a teacher. I was 15 when I gave birth to my child… I didn’t know who I am or what is life all about.”

It is unbelievable to see these acts still happening in the 21st century. What is the reason? Muslim scholars are quick to jump and say Islam, the Quran and Muhammad are not the problem. However, these are the very same things that they use to prove that a little girl’s life should be ended for the sake of the pleasure of religious men.

Democrats Chose Obama and Iran Over America’s Future

Daniel Greenfield// Senate Democrats had a very simple choice in the Iran deal. They could stand with the vast majority of Americans who were opposed to it.Voters oppose 55 – 25 percent the proposed nuclear agreement with Iran. 56 to 28 percent say it will make the world less safe. Even black voters, Obama’s most enthusiastic base, split on the deal 39 to 38 percent.

But despite majorities opposed to the Iran Deal that even Obama admitted will let Iran have a near zero breakout time to the bomb, Senate Democrats chose to listen to Obama instead of to Americans. They picked Iran’s bomb over America’s national security.

They chose to make America less safe to make their careers more safe.

They chose MoveOn’s dirty money over the worries of their constituents.

They betrayed the people they claimed to represent. They betrayed America. And they betrayed the future.

As we speak, Iran is involved in multiple wars in the region, some of which have already involved the use of WMDs. Every day, Iran finds a new way to disavow the deal. The deal that the Democrats have backed will even allow Iran to conduct self-inspections of its own weapons facility.

Some Senate Democrats, like Menendez and Webb, courageously spoke out against the deal and asked their fellow senators to put country ahead of party. Instead most chose to put party ahead of country.

This is now their bomb. They own Iran’s nuclear program. Whatever happens next is on them and on their party. It was a handful of years from Chamberlain’s croak of “Peace for our time” to war. As then, so here, the war is already underway. They have chosen not to see it or acknowledge it. They have chosen to lie about it in the hopes of preserving their miserable careers.

They have betrayed their country for their careers.


ISIS Burns Alive Four Prisoners

Still from video.

The Islamic State has released a chilling new video showing the execution of four Shiite prisoners by burning in Iraq.

The four men are accused of being members of the Shiite Popular Resistance Committees. They are forced to confess for the camera before the execution.

They are suspended from a frame with ropes and a fire lit underneath. Islamic State music accompanies the executions.

The killings are believed to be revenge attacks for a video circulated last week of a Shiite militia roasting a fighter accused of allegiance to ISIS over an open pit.

The video is entitled Punish Them with the Same Harm They Have Caused You, a verse from the Quran alluding to vengeance.

As the video was released news broke that ISIS blew up the Temple of Bel in Palmyra. It was considered to be the most important temple at the site and was the second to be destroyed, following the destruction of the Temple of Baalshamin last week.

Video n more here: