In a piece last week titled “Hillary’s War,” writer Victor Sharpe notes the following:

The jihadists are now the creatures that Barack Hussein Obama, with the connivance and urgings of Hillary, Samantha Powers, Susan Rice and so many other “progressive” denizens of the White House and State, are supporting. If this were a novel it would be considered too far-fetched.

It occurs to me that between Hillary, Powers, Rice, Albright and the other Rice (who proved a disappointment in the end), it seems we have our answer to that wistful, dreamy, hypothetical scenario and solution to all things: “If only women ran the world…”

If women ran the world, it appears, it would look exactly the same. As it is, our “men” in Washington have been behaving like scared little bitches for the past 20 years.

As for Sharpe’s bafflement over the U.S. supporting jihadists, which he says would seem far-fetched even for a novel, this is not new — and not exclusive to Democratic administrations. Yet Sharpe is not alone in recent befuddlement over whom the U.S. is siding with. The same week, Glenn Beck expressed dismay and confusion on his TV show in a monologue titled “Tonight I Stand with Israel.” First, the other relevant parts of the Sharpe piece:

…Hillary urged Bill to launch the first “human rights war” in Bosnia and Kosovo. But in doing so she laid the foundation for an Islamic beachhead in territory previously fought over for centuries by Christian Serbs who were resisting Muslim invasion and conquest.

Again, according to Gail Sheehy writing on December 9, 1999 in Hillary’s Choice, page 345: On March 21, 1999, Hillary expressed her views by phone to the President:

“I urged him to bomb…You cannot let this go on at the end of a century that has seen the major holocaust of our time. What do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life?”

The next day the President declared that force was necessary. Thus it was Hillary Clinton who urged her husband to bomb Serbia. And it was done, predominately, with the use of U.S. aircraft wearing NATO insignia and bombing from thousands of feet. Inevitably such indiscriminate force led to the destruction of bridges in Belgrade with untold numbers of Serbian civilians killed. Some humanitarian war!

The same thread appeared in June 1999 when Hillary spoke at the Sorbonne in Paris. She again defended the bombing of Serbia by claiming that:

“We will not turn away when human beings are cruelly expelled or when they are denied basic rights and dignities because of how they look or how they worship. When crimes against humanity rear their ugly heads, we have to send such a message as an international community.”

She was referring to the Muslim victims of the war but she lost sight both of the Serbian victims who had died at the hands of Muslims she was defending or who themselves had been expelled from their lands by Muslim aggressors. She misread the strategic and humanitarian disaster to the West that increasingly jihadist Muslim states in the Balkans were bound to create. It was not America’s finest hour.

In fact, Hillary did not ‘lose sight’ of Serbian victims, and she did not ‘misread’ anything. American promotion of Islam is very much by design. Considering that everything we touch turns to Islam regardless of whether Democrats or Republicans are in power, something else is clearly at work. Stupidity and lack of foresight can explain a pattern only so far. Back to Sharpe:

Now Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, is doing the very same in Libya that she set in motion in Bosnia and Kosovo. Like the pressure she brought to bear on President Clinton, Hillary has repeated it with President Obama.

So we have Obama signing on to United States bombing in Libya in order to protect the so-called Libyan rebels against the deplorable President Gaddafi. But, like the Muslims in the Balkans that Hillary wept over, we have no true idea who these rebels really are. There are commentators who believe that, as Gaddafi himself suggested, the rebels are members of Al Qaida or the Muslim Brotherhood.

It is instructive to read Tom Dickinson writing in the far from conservative website, Rolling Stone, on March 21, 2011. Though Dickinson is critical of Obama, remember it was Hillary Clinton who pressured the present president, as did Samantha Power, one of his most influential foreign policy advisors, and Susan Rice, his ambassador to the United Nations. Dickinson wrote:

“In recent years, at mosques throughout eastern Libya, radical imams have been “urging worshippers to support jihad in Iraq and elsewhere, according to Wiki-Leaked cables. More troubling: The city of Derna, east of Benghazi, was a “wellspring” of suicide bombers that targeted U.S. troops in Iraq.

“By imposing a no-fly zone over Eastern Libya, the U.S. and its coalition partners have effectively embraced the breakaway republic of Cyrenaica. [Notice that familiar theme. -Ed.] A West Point analysis of a cache of al Qaeda records discovered that nearly 20 percent of foreign fighters in Iraq were Libyans, and that on a per-capita basis Libya nearly doubled Saudi Arabia as the top source of foreign fighters…”

So here we see Hillary at it again. Having brutally harmed Serbia and forced it to lose its heartland of Kosovo — what Serbs call their Jerusalem — she aided and abetted Muslim jihadist ambitions and is now doing the same in Libya.

So what does this tell you? It’s not a matter of being stupid twice. Or three times. Or more. This isn’t making the same mistake over and over again. This isn’t serendipitous consistency or wars of opportunity reaping the same results. Something else is at work.

…Is Hillary so naïve as not to realize that these are not Libyan rebels in the true sense of the word? No, I believe she fully understands what she is doing and that makes for one truly frightening scenario.

The frightening scenario is much bigger than Hillary Clinton or the Obama administration.

The rebels are jihadists, murderers of Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are enemies of the West; enemies of Jews and Christians and of all other non-Muslim faiths.

So are the ruling elites. Are we starting to get it yet? Which religion gets a free pass and reverence from the political class and its mainstream media? Which religion has our politicians and bureaucrats applauding U.S. newspapers for not following the European example of printing the Muhammad cartoons?

The ruling class, the people in power and their mainstream media, promote Islam. This is why it’s getting a privileged status in Western societies. The answer to why they like Islam has something to do with Islam’s utility in subduing a populace, getting people used to censoring themselves, whispering, and not wanting to stick out. Qualities that our elitist masters and re-shapers of the universe are going to need us to have in order to fulfill their Sorosian schemes of redrawing national borders and removing the sovereignty and identity of the traditional nation-state, culminating in the elimination of traditional American values — which they despise and which are a thorn in the side of their plans. The Islamic takeover that we are witnessing — to almost zero resistance by our “leaders,” who laud the soft Islamization as “cultural diversity” that enhances our society — is part of a bigger takeover. The elites are of course bargaining, as always, on the Muslims being controllable in the process, but the two divergent end goals (secular totalitarianism vs. Islamic totalitarianism) will collide.

Sharpe concludes:

What is shameful is that Americans are being put yet again in harm’s way in another Muslim country and at the urgings of the Arab League: that ever corrupt body that is using American and European forces as cannon fodder.

The jihadists are now the creatures that Barack Hussein Obama, with the connivance and urgings of Hillary, Samantha Powers, Susan Rice and so many other “progressive” denizens of the White House and State, are supporting. If this were a novel it would be considered too far-fetched.

It will be interesting to see how the far left views Obama’s and Hillary’s War? Unhappy, to say the least, with the protracted conflict in Iraq, Afghanistan and now the Libyan imbroglio, one thing is certain: they cannot this time blame Bush.

When something seems too far-fetched, you must reassess your initial premise. As Ayn Rand always said: If you see a contradiction, revise your original premise — because it’s probably wrong. As for blaming Bush or not, it’s time to stop the partisan charade. Bush’s Iraq and Afghanistan, though more justified conflicts, nonetheless adhere to the rule that everything we touch turns to Islam. The same was true of Kosovo and Bosnia, the official line on which is supported by both parties. Bush was as gung-ho for Hillary’s war as John McCain and notorious, paid Serb-haters Bob and Elizabeth Dole. And it was Bush who oversaw the unilateral declaration of independence that the Clinton war culminated in, an enshrinement with statehood of that insane war, and of jihad and gangsterism. So yes we can blame Bush. We can blame them all. Let’s not miss the forest for the trees, much less get stuck on a tree stump named Hillary.

Bush attended the Olympics in China, helped North Korea with its nuclear reactor, he and Rice embraced the Organization of the Islamic Conference, made references to “Palestine,” and Kosovo became “Kosova” (the terrorist/Albanian pronunciation). When Bush called out the Axis of Evil, I didn’t know he meant for us to join it. Perhaps we just didn’t want to be out-led, as was our motivation for hijacking German policy in the Balkans (”to demonstrate leadership”), which of course ended up being unfinished Nazi business.

Nor should we ignore the fact that it was with the advent of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with the Guantanamo Bay prison, that our troops suddenly found the military Islamicizing them. Diana West recently posted about one example of this trend:

The [International Security Assistance Force] caption tells us so-and-so holds his prayers beads during a March 2010 ribbon-cutting ceremony on an electrification project in the Farah Distriction, quoting Mr. So-and-So as saying: “If we have electricity … we can turn on our lights, and read the Koran.”

…We must go beyond shock to assess the advanced state of psycho-masochism the US military has now attained under the suicidal ideology of COIN [the counterinsurgency doctrine of nation-building and winning hearts and minds]…But the joke is on the COINsters. For what is happening is that it is they who are remaking themselves. In seeking to win Islamic hearts and minds, a linchpin of the non-military, social-work basis of the COIN strategy, they have themselves become de facto followers of Islamic law, and they are spreading it to our troops.

This is [what] the ISAF site tells us. To wit:

Download Religious Importance of the Qu’ran” the ISAF commands.

So I did. Up pops COIN Advisory # 20100924-001 (I’m not kidding). This perfectly rancid sop to “Cultural Sensitivity” (the non-ironic title) is something for US troops to gag themselves with. Literally. “Never talk badly about the Qur’an or its contents[,]” #2 “recommendation” says, a no-nonsense formulation of Islamic prohibitions against criticizing Islam.

Remember, this COIN Advisory is attached to the very first item ISAF displays, hoisted like a flag of dhimmitude to denote ISAF’s adoption of Islamic law (sharia)….But if illuminating the Koran is perfectly okay for infidels to do, touching the thing is not. Why? “It is considered culturally insensitive for any non-Muslim to touch a copy of the Qur’an,” ISAF explains. Why that it is indeed the Islamic case, ISAF doesn’t mention. Perhaps it would upset still-not-completely dhimmified troops to learn that this injunction exists because Muslims consider non-Muslim “najis,” or unclean….We must appreciate the implications: Having accepted this basic supremacist divide, ISAF has also accepted dhimmitude…and it is imposing it on our troops.

Of course, there’s more:

“Additionally, verbal disrespect for Islam and/or the Qur’an us considered as inappropriate as physical desecration of the Qur’an. Insulting the Qur’an is an act of blasphemy.”

The way Islam treats women stinks = verbal disrespect for Islam. The verses of the Qur’an that call for jihad against infidels are heinous = insulting the Qur’an. Tut, tut: ISAF, veritable mouthpiece of the coming caliphate, deems such talk “inappropriate” and “blasphemy” — which just might win them an extra pillow at the foot of the caliph’s throne.


“Muslims believe they have an inherent duty to stand up to injustices committed against Islam and the Qur’an. Therefore, they take any perceived disrespect to Islam and/or the Qur’an extremely seriously….”

Therefore, so does ISAF, which recommends:

1. Do NOT handle Qur’ans or other Islamic relgious items. (CAPS in the original.)

2. Never talk badly about the Qur’an or its contents.

3. If you must search a location or person’s belongings, ask them if they have a Qur’an or religious item present. If so, ask them to remove it or put it in a suitable place before conducting the search.

4. Your level of sensitivity must be even greater when conducting canine searches. [Dogs are also “najis.”] Having an animal anywhere near a Qur'’an or other religious artifact is considered highly disrespectful.

5. If you have questions about the Qur’an or Islam, ask respectfully.

6. Be informed and be prepared to answer questions about alleged desecration of the Qur’an.

This kind of thing has been going on a long time — too long…

Regardless of who’s in the White House or Congress, this country has been steadily moving in exactly one direction. There are elements of conspiracy, but what we’re dealing with is really more of a combination scenario. One can’t say that the Islamicizing direction we’ve taken before and especially since 9/11 had been envisioned by the people in power, but as this dynamic has taken shape, clearly large forces have decided to take a symbiotic rather than a confrontational approach to dealing with it. It’s been enough to form a consistent pattern, and it doesn’t diminish the crime against civilization.

When the word “conspiracy theory” snidely comes up in the context of current trends, one shouldn’t rule out the combination scenario. One microcosmic example is when the Lewinsky scandal ‘necessitating’ a vanity war fell into the laps of those who were seeking to re-order the Balkans region anyway — and were actively doing so. Indeed, a war in Kosovo had already been invoked as a possibility by Bush Sr., Tom Lantos, and Bob Dole in the early 90s — well before Bill Clinton found himself in need of a war. A war that he originally had not been interested in waging, despite Madeleine Albright’s pestering him to kill Serbs for two years already.

All of which brings us, finally, to Glenn Beck’s puzzlement over the United States siding with Israel’s enemies:

Name the country in the Middle East that has the values, generally speaking, that we have. I can only name one. Why are we standing with all those who are against Israel?

They [Israel] tolerated more provocations than probably any other country in history, and despite having enough arsenals of nukes to obliterate their enemies — believe me they can take care of themselves — how many have they lobbed? The answer: zero.

While everyone complains about all the evils that Israel has done to the Arabs and then picks apart each tiny imperfection with their democracy…tens of millions — tens of millions — of Arabs have suffered at the hands of their own countries. Gays are still tortured today and killed, bloggers jailed without cause, women humiliated, raped, and murdered, dissidents killed, protesters shot, terrorists born, suicide bombers given by their mothers. But Israel is the evil one? That’s the obstacle to peace? Let me ask you this: How many homosexuals have been stoned to death by the Israelis? How many adulterers have been buried up to their neck in sand and stoned to death in Israel? How many bloggers have been jailed without cause? How many terrorists are wearing a yarmulke?

Well, the world is being led to the water that Israel is the evil one, and it’s about to drink. Don’t drink that water. They have measurably — no, it’s the Middle East — they have immeasurably more freedoms than any other Middle Eastern nation. Women are free to drive. Women and our daughters can walk alone in the streets without being stoned or jailed. You can bring a bible — or a Koran — into Israel.

A woman can’t walk down the street alone and be safe — and not because she’s in a dangerous neighborhood but because she walked alone without a man. How do you possibly stand with that country? How do you possibly stand with a group of people who say ‘I’m going to kill you if you don’t go to my faith’? A country that treats women or people who are at all different like a dog, treats a woman as a piece of furniture or a sexual toy that can be raped, and the courts will allow it. How is it that a country like ours actually listens to those evil people saying ‘this is evil’ — and we believe it. How many Israelis have taken someone off the streets and then beheaded them on video tape just for political reasons?

Our administration is siding with the wrong side. They are standing against good and encouraging evil in the Middle East. We are reprimanding the nation that is as flawed as we are, and protecting the aggressor. We’re protecting the killers and the terrorists. We’ve gone from a nation that was doing the wrong thing by siding with Mubarek to a nation who is doing an even greater evil by arming al Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood which empowers Iran and also in the end destroys Israel.

It is not difficult to tell good apart from evil. Let’s start with some simple ideas. Voting rights. Generally speaking, which is better? Voting rights in Iran? The Muslim Brotherhood? Those who run al-Qaida? How about free speech, rights of women, rights of homosexuals — America and Israel? Or the people we seem to be siding with? I stand tonight with Israel.

America siding against Israel may seem more glaring now, but it has been the case for decades, and throughout Republican and Democratic administrations alike. While some presidents have been more anti-Israel, and some less, most of the people in their shadow have been steadfastly Arabist, either out of practical considerations or out of the human inclination to cater to evil — and therefore Israel has been a perpetual annoyance. Beck’s confusion over this apparent ‘new’ anti-Israel course we’ve taken stems from a fundamental non-acknowledgment of what “our values” are. What he calls our values is what the ruling class loathes and is trying to overhaul as it remakes the American identity into the transnational nothingness that the rest of the world is dissolving into.

When one looks at American behavior on the international stage for the past 20 years, one realizes that the only thing keeping America American is a percentage of the populace that still believes in those values, even though they have not been on display when it comes to policy or our behavior in other regions. There’s a huge disconnect between what the public thinks America is, and what the ruling class demonstrates it is. Indeed, Hillary’s words that with our terrorist war in furtherance of jihad in the Balkans we were “defending our way of life” were more prophetic than even she knew. Institutionalizing criminality, jihad, torture, mafia, witness intimidation, lack of freedom of press and religion, slave-trafficking, and overall totalitarianism — as we did in Kosovo — are the new American values being pursued, out of sheer pragmatism. And notice that our targets today are people whose identities remain connected to (non-Muslim) religion: Jews, Serbs and other Christians whom Muslims have marked for extinction.

Separately, Beck is certainly right that Israel has tolerated more provocations than any country in history, but a look at 1980s-90s Yugoslavia would reveal that Serbia probably takes second place in that category.

In closing, one American Christian woman has publicly recognized that the United States has allied itself with Islam — against the U.S. Constitution and American citizens. Ann Barnhardt has fired an opening shot in the citizens’ war that we will all eventually be called into, in a piece that should probably have been titled “Lindsey Graham, You Stupid, Stupid Jackass” (thanks to Bill Warner):

Part II: