Andrew C. McCarthy: ‘Sharia Killed Ambassador Chris Stevens’

‘Sharia Killed Ambassador Chris Stevens’

Posted By Andrew C. McCarthy On October 26, 2012

Sharia might have something to do with it, but Willary Clitman made sure he’s dead.

The headline on this post could just be a statement of fact, derived from an obvious truth, albeit one that our willfully blind government refuses to assimilate despite years of anti-American atrocities.

Under the supremacist interpretation of sharia — Islam’s totalitarian societal system — that is regnant in the Middle East, non-Muslim Westerners who seek to implant Western ideas and institutions in Islamic countries are deemed enemies who must be driven out or killed. As U.S. Ambassador to Libya, as an American attempting to transition the former Qaddafi dictatorship into something approximating Western democracy, Christopher Stephens was deemed an enemy worthy of killing; therefore, sharia ideologues killed him, along with three other similarly “culpable” Americans.

That is what happened. It is, moreover, what President Obama and his administration knew happened. They no doubt knew it while it was happening. They undeniably knew it within hours of its happening. And in spite of knowing it, they weaved a web of lies, over a course of weeks, to obscure what happened. They did so in gross violation of the president’s oath of office, and in a willfully anti-Constitutional conspiracy with Islamists against American free expression rights — a conspiracy resulting in the unforgivable prosecution of an American citizen for exercising his First Amendment right to make a video negatively depicting Islam. A video top administration officials, including the president himself, fraudulently portrayed as the catalyst of murderous Islamist savagery, intentionally obscuring the role of sharia.

That could be the explanation for the headline of this post. But it is not.

The headline, instead, is a quote mined from a bull’s-eye column by the American Spectator‘s stellar Jeffrey Lord. “Sharia,” he concludes, “killed Ambassador Chris Stevens.” And unlike anything you’ve read, Jeff compellingly connects some damning dots.

The local al-Qaeda franchise in Libya is called Ansar al-Sharia — literally, the “helpers of sharia.” The organization’s goal, the goal shared by all Islamists, not just those who seek it by violent jihad, is to “impose sharia.” So declares Ansar al-Sharia’s emir, Mohammed Ali al-Zawahi. Entirely consistent with that goal, Lord reports Zawahi’s proclamation that Ansar “is all about doing ‘battle with the liberals, the secularists and the remnants of Gaddafi.’ The terms ‘liberals’ and ‘secularists’ of course mean Americans and Westerners.”

For those who seek to impose sharia, the liberty culture of the West is anathema because Islam prohibits in Islamic lands the licensing of anything sharia forbids and the prohibition of anything sharia permits. This supremacist construction of sharia, deeply rooted in Muslim scripture, exhorts Muslims to drive out or kill Westerners even if those Westerners believe their operations in Islamic countries are for the humanitarian benefit of indigenous Muslims.

That is why, for example, Afghan military and police recruits turn their guns on their American and allied trainers, killing scores of them in just the last two years.

It is why Islamists like Saleha Abedin, the mother of Secretary of State Clinton’s top adviser Huma Abedin, work towards the repeal of Mubarak-era laws that protected women and girls from horrific practices like child marriage and female genital mutilation — practices that are endorsed by sharia and, Islamists insist, may not be banned regardless of how the West may judge them.

Lord marshals the facts: we now know President Obama and his administration knew, in real time, while the Benghazi attack was happening on the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 atrocities, that Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility for what was obviously a coordinated pre-planned attack. Indeed, I would add, we now finally know that the president told 60 Minutes, within hours of the attack, that the Benghazi operation was not like the protests in Egypt over the video, that it involved aggressors “who were looking to target Americans from the start.” CBS disgracefully excised this statement from the televised edition of the interview, aiding and abetting day after day for five weeks the “blame the video” lie on which the administration had settled.

Lord then refocuses us on another fact — one that the Obamedia, in characteristic suppression of any scent of their guy’s background, has steadfastly avoided covering, but one that was unearthed by the invaluable Walid Shoebat: members of President Obama’s Muslim family in Kenya are exploiting their newfound prominence and connections, particularly with the Saudis, to promote and fund sharia education.

In conjunction with the Saudis, the Obama family established the “Mama Sarah Obama Children Foundation.” The namesake is the president’s grandmother. The foundation’s ostensible purposes are education and the fights against AIDS and poverty. That’s why, Lord observes, it gets “gobs of favorable publicity from groups as varied as the International Reporting Project (in which New York Times editor Jill Abramson plays a key role), the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation, Greenpeace, and even the Catholic Relief Services.” Nevertheless, Obama’s cousin Musa Ismail Obama gave an inconvenient interview to al-Jazeera, bragging — as Walid Shoebat summarizes — that: “The bulk of the Sarah Fund … sends little to widows and orphans while the rest goes towards giving free scholarships to studying sharia at the most influential Wahhabist centers in Saudi Arabia.” (Emphasis in original.)

As Lord observes:

Obama has never held a press conference to disavow Granny Sarah — as he did with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Nor has he publicly asked her to stop using the president of the United States as fundraising bait to raise money for what is, in effect, the exact same objective as Ansar al-Sharia as expressed by Mohammad Ali al-Zahawi. That objective? Creating more Sharia fanatics whose sole belief is about imposing Sharia — everywhere. For all we know some Granny Obama-funded Sharia-acolyte could one day well turn up in yet another attack on Americans just like the attack in Benghazi.

You think that’s harsh? Maybe you haven’t heard about Masjid Dar al-Hijra in Virginia — a mosque lionized by the State Department as an exemplar of Islam in America, yet a mosque that has been a hub of al-Qaeda terrorists and the Muslim Brotherhood’s Hamas support network. Maybe you haven’t heard about the Islamic Saudi Academy in Virginia, an incubator of Islamic supremacism whose 1999 valedictorian, Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, seamlessly moved on to al-Qaeda and was ultimately convicted of plotting to murder President George W. Bush. Maybe you haven’t heard about the Muslim Students Association, foundation of the Muslim Brotherhood’s American infrastructure — whose now hundreds of chapters across the U.S. and Canada form a sharia promotion society, a cavalcade of whose top stars have moved on to the promotion and commission of violent jihad. Of course, not everyone reared in classical sharia becomes a sympathizer, much less a practitioner, of violent jihad; but many have, and do. Common sense leaves us no alternative but to conclude that the phenomenon is natural, predictable, and inevitable.

I’ve argued for weeks that the administration’s cover-up of the circumstances surrounding the killing of four American officials — of the jihadist nature of the operation, of the fact that the murders could have been prevented if the administration had not recklessly embraced the illusion of “Islamic democracy” in Libya — is explained by ideologically driven politics. The president’s disastrous Libya policy — the unprovoked, unauthorized war that vested Islamists with political power and Qaddafi’s sophisticated weaponry — is exposed by al-Qaeda’s murder of our officials, as is the campaign myth that because “Obama killed Osama,” al-Qaeda, too, has been mortally wounded. Ambassador John Bolton persuasively makes the case for the “ideology explanation” in interviews withGreta Van Susteren (“There’s this screen over consciousness that prevents them from seeing reality when it’s put right in front of them”) and Lou Dobbs (at about the 5:00 mark: “Reality doesn’t get through to the president often enough and … tragically, this was a case of it”).

Jeff Lord takes it a step further:

[I]n the world of leftist ideology that Barack Obama is using to run the White House, the State Department, and all the rest of the U.S. government, to consider Ansar Al-Sharia a threat of any kind would be an insult. Divisive. Deliberately egging on what the Obama administration likes to call a “man caused disaster” — formerly known as Islamic terrorism. What these leaked State Department emails are doing is raising the obvious point about Obama and Benghazi. If Benghazi is not about incompetence or lying — it’s worse. It’s about a U.S. government that is at its highest levels in some fashion simpatico with a totalitarian ideology. That ideology is Sharia.

Finally, Jeff diagnoses the fatal effects of “spring fever” — of boosting sharia totalitarianism as if it were a striving for Western liberty:

This is, after all, a president who has repeatedly gone out of his way to send a signal to Islamic radicals that he would, as he said in his Cairo University address, “consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.” [Emphasis in original.]

This is a president who blithely said just the other week at the United Nations that Arab youths were “rejecting the lie that … some religions … do not desire democracy.” The lie, of course, is that Sharia — the very Sharia promoted by his own family with his silent acquiescence as well as by Ansar Al-Sharia in Libya (not to mention the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt) does in fact strenuously reject democracy other than as a means of getting power. Once that power is obtained, free elections vanish and, to borrow from Churchill, the Iron Veil descends.

We may not be able to lift the veil descending on the Middle East. It is long past time, though, to lift it from our own eyes.–Comments

Either the CIA Is Lame or the CIA Is a Political Tool

by DIANA WEST October 25, 2012

The Daily Beast’s Eli Lake reports on a “suspect” in the Benghazi assault but his B-matter is more interesting.

He writes:

The CIA’s latest assessment also says once and for all that the assault didn’t start as a protest against an anti-Islam Internet video. In the first eight days following the attacks, Obama administration cited that video as the primary cause of the assault.

The CIA presented its “latest assessment” to Congress on Friday, October 19. Once and for all, there was no video-inspired protest that spiralled into a terrrist attack in Benghazi, the multi-billion-dollar intelligence-gathering institution finally said 38 days after the attack.

Lake continues:

Yet the FBI knew there was no protest as early as Sept. 14, according to U.S. officials familiar with the investigation. These people say that’s when FBI agents interviewed four of the five diplomatic security officers who were at the consulate during the attack. The officers were interviewed at Ramstein Airbase in Germany, where they had been evacuated. They told the FBI that there was no protest outside the consulate on 9-11 and that the men who showed up that evening were there to assault the compound.

And State Department officials watched events in real time, and never concluded the attack grew from a video protest.

What’s with the CIA? Or, better question — what’s with the White House? That’s where the FBI’s info ordinarily would have gone on September 14, Lakes writes.

Information like this “is ordinarily transferred back to Washington, given to John Brennan in the White House, so the president and White House would be aware of the progress in the investigation,” said Fran Townsend, a former White House homeland security and counterterrorism advisor to President George W. Bush who now serves on the CIA’s external advisory committee.

Like David Petraeus, John Brennan has some explaining to do to Congress. Another question that requires an answer: Who drafted the president’s UN address on September 25? Was it Brennan? That speech stands as the closing bookend to the video-narrative the White House, and particularly Obama, pressed for two weeks after the attack. Why? Why did the White House continue to argue that a Youtube protest led to an attack when it was clear from Day 1 at State and the Tripoli CIA station, Day 3 at the FBI,  that there was no Youtube protest.

White House reasons could include the following:

1) admitting that al-Qaeda-linked terrorists had launched an attack on 9/11/12 on an American outpost in Libya would undercut the President’s campaign claim that al Qaeda is dead because Obama killed OBL;

2) admitting that al-Qaeda-linked terrorists had launched an attack on 9/11/12 on an American outpost in Libya would cast grave doubt on the administration’s “Arab Spring” policies supporting al Qaeda-linked and Muslim Brotherhood revolutions throughout the Middle East;

3) peddling the Big Lie that a video-inspired riot spun out of control into a violent attack helped advance the administration’s rationale for appeasing the Islamic world via the ” Istambul Process” to censor free speech about Islam.

This last reason draws a measure of support from the logic of the timeline: On September 25, fourteen days after Benghazi, President Obama cited the video six times in his United Nations address in which he scandalously declared (but no MSM coverage): “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” After that, talk of the video by the administration drops off, or stops altogether (I can’t find any). The narrative shifts to deflecting blame to the intelligence community or “taking responsibility.” It is as if the president’s mission had been accomplished.

Lake’s piece concludes:

It’s unclear when the FBI related this information to the White House, and both the FBI and the White House National Security Council declined to comment for this story. Two U.S. intelligence officials, however, say the FBI’s information didn’t make it into the intelligence community databases used by analysts until September 20.

I guess that’s when the FBI’s carrier pigeons arrived back in DC.


No, It’s Sharia and the Assault on U.S. Missions

I could not more vigorously disagree with my friend Daniel Pipes, who disappointingly lays fault for yesterday’s carnage at the feet of Reverend Terry Jones. In essence, Daniel — like much of the progressive, bipartisan U.S. ruling class — adopts the reasoning of Muslim Brotherhood jurist Yusuf Qaradawi, who admonishes that women who fail to conform to fundamentalist Islam’s restrictive sartorial standards have only themselves to blame when they get raped.

Let’s say Terry Jones was Imam Terry Jones. It is not hard to imagine because there goes by not a day when some Islamist leader of far more consequence than Jones matter-of-factly spouts hatred of America and the West that is more provocative, and more representative of his country or region, than anything that has ever passed Jones’s lips. Would it make you riot? Would it make you commit murder? Would it foment more than a yawn? And if it did stir so much as a suggestion that this typical Muslim leader should be silenced, the only public protests and pious government caterwauling would be directed at that suggestion, not at the anti-American incitements that prompted it.

The coordinated violence against American installations in the Middle East on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11 was caused by one thing: Islamic supremacism. Contrary to the knowing lies government officials and opinion elites have been feeding the American people for 20 years, Islamic supremacism is not the fringe ideology of the terrorists; it is the predominant Islam of the Middle East. By margins of upwards of 2 to 1, the United States and the West are despised in countries like Egypt and Libya. As I point out in my just-released book, Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy, when given the chance, Egyptians elected Islamic supremacists by a 4-to-1 margin. The only surprise in the voting was not the weakness of secular democrats — that they are a non-factor, even though American politicians continue to depict them as emblematic of the Muslim Middle East, was a given. The surprise was that the Muslim Brotherhood, which has reaffirmed its goal of a global caliphate ruled by sharia, is not quite devout enough for about a quarter of Egyptians, who voted for the even more extreme “Salafist” parties.

Under sharia, as construed by Islamic supremacists (i.e., at least two-thirds of Middle East Muslims), any negative criticism of Islam or its prophet, no matter how trifling, is deemed to be blasphemy and warrants violent reprisals — including death. These Muslims — hundreds of millions of them — consider this to be a divine ordinance and thus to be imposed on Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Understand that Islam, particularly as Islamic supremacists interpret it, is not merely a religion; it is a totalitarian ideology that has some spiritual principles, which make up a small subset of the belief system. Blasphemy is not applied only to the spiritual principles — say, to the oneness of Allah, and the like. The speech prohibition applies across the board to all Islamic doctrine. You’ve got a problem with a woman’s court testimony being worth only half of a man’s? Blasphemy! You’ve got a problem with needing four male witnesses to prove rape? Blasphemy! You’ve got a problem with the death penalty for homosexuals? With stoning for adulterers? With scourging for the consumption of alcohol? Blasphemy, blasphemy, blasphemy!

That’s what causes the rioting and murder. The “blasphemers” are only a pretext. What causes this is the indoctrination of Muslim populations in an evil ideology that justifies savagery over nonsense. That’s the proximate cause. If you want to look at a material cause beyond the proximate cause, the place to start would be American officials like the ones Daniel cites with seeming approval: David Petraeus, Robert Gates, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama — and I’d add Lindsey Graham to the list. They are the officials who condemned Terry Jones’s exercise of free speech — book burning — because, as Daniel gently puts it, they were “worried it would lead to Muslim violence against Americans.” That is shameful. What “leads to Muslim violence” is the toxic combination of Islamic teaching that violence is the appropriate response to even minor insults and the dhimmified superpower’s acquiescence in this barbarism.

At, former CIA operations officer Clare Lopez has an excellent post this morning explaining the Obama administration’s complicity in the campaign by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to impose sharia blasphemy standards on the world. (I would point you to Clare’s essay even if she had not been good enough to mention something I’d written.) After laying out the Obama State Department’s disgraceful statement yesterday, from its Cairo embassy, condemning American free speech and ignoring Islamist aggression (“The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims,” and so on), Clare writes:

That statement came directly out of the talking points of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) on its Ten-Year Programme of Action and is intended by both the OIC and the U.S. Department of State to impose legal limits on Americans’ freedom of speech by criminalizing criticism of Islam. Recall that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hosted OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu in Washington, D.C. in mid-December 2011 to discuss implementation mechanisms for “Resolution 16/18,” a declaration adopted by the U.N. Human Rights Council in April 2011.

Resolution 16/18 calls on countries to combat “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization” based on religion without criminalizing free speech – except in cases of “incitement to imminent violence.” If now the measure of “incitement to imminent violence” is a “test of consequences” that imposes prior restraint on freedom of expression because of the unpredictability of volatile Muslim populaces easily roused to murderous fury, as in Benghazi and Cairo, then Islamic law on slander will have been enforced.

This is the real meaning of these attacks, which were purposefully calculated precisely to elicit the craven press release quoted above from the U.S. State Department. This is how dhimmitude is implemented. Islamic Jihad and Gama’a al-Islamiyya demands for the release of Omar Abdul Rahman (the “Blind Sheikh”), now serving a life sentence in U.S. federal prison for his involvement in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, also have been issued, along with a threat to burn the U.S. Cairo Embassy to the ground if these demands are not met.

We are witnessing the stepped process of the Islamization of American domestic and foreign policy unfold before our eyes and in accordance with both Sayyed Qutb’s classic book “Milestones,” as well as a November 2011 fatwa from Yousef al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s senior jurist, in which he said, “Gradualism in applying the Sharia is a wise requirement to follow.”

Sheikh Qaradawi is no doubt a happy man today. The plan is working to a T.

UPDATE: Further thoughts.