Michelle Malkin » Exposing the Grand Jihad

Exposing the Grand Jihad

By Michelle Malkin • May 25, 2010 10:19 AM

Former top federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy has been one of America’s bravest and most stalwart warriors against Islamic jihad. He’s battled them in court. He’s exposed them here at home and around the globe.

His new book, The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America, is out today, and I urge you all to get a copy — and then share it with all your friends and family. If you care about the survival of our country, McCarthy’s work is must-read. He thoroughly demonstrates how our external Muslim enemies join with out internal Alinskyite enemies to destroy all we hold dear.

You can follow him on Twitter here.

His latest piece at NRO asks trenchantly as always: How long can a people remain a People when its leaders side with its foes? McCarthy writes:

A number of years ago, at some risk to myself and my family, I prosecuted savage jihadists who had made themselves enemies of the United States. I was lauded for doing so by the Clinton administration. Though I disagreed with that administration philosophically, and particularly with its conception of international terrorism as a crime problem, I praised the much-needed overhaul by which it put teeth in our counterterrorism laws. Our disagreement was over the best way to protect the country, not over the imperative that the country be protected. Our debate was the traditional Right-Left debate.

Moreover, as a New York lawyer who made no secret of having conservative views, I was a decided minority, even among my fellow prosecutors. But that only mattered in the occasional, friendly joust over a beer. Day to day, our politics had nothing to do with how we went about our jobs. At the office, I had friends across the ideological spectrum. Most of them were from the political left, but we liked and respected one another. The bond we shared, the sense that we were doing something good for the nation we all loved, was stronger than any ideological divisions.

Why does that matter now? Because, for the first time in our history, we have a president who would be much more comfortable sitting in a room with Bill Ayers than sitting in a room with me. We have a governing class that is too often comfortable with anti-American radicals, with rogue and dysfunctional governments that blame America for their problems, and with Muslim Brotherhood ideologues who abhor individual liberty, capitalism, freedom of conscience, and, in general, Western enlightenment. To this president and his government, I am the problem.

Bullseye.

~ For the latest breaking news, be sure to join Michelle's e-mail list ~

Posted in: Homeland Security,Islam

Printer Friendly

comments (116)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

« Older Comments

#101

On May 25th, 2010 at 10:44 pm, zyzzyg said:

On May 25th, 2010 at 1:41 pm, Flyoverman said: #70

Impeccable logic Z. That is like saying because George HW Bush was served brocilli at a state dinner in England, he does not dislike brocilli.

Huh? Did he eat the broccoli?

Nope. You are wrong.

It isn’t about what someone is served, it is about what someone chooses. An individual chooses to say that they enjoy baseball. Their choosing to enjoy baseball does not mean that they do not also enjoy other sports.

Your example takes away the choice of the individual.

Your example would be consistent with mine if Pres Bush were given a choice of vegetable. If he chose broccoli it would not necessarily mean he did not care for spinach.

Given your evidenciary standards, it would be impossible to reach any conclusion about any person on any topic.

Nope. I have previously said that Pres Obama has demonstrated a comfort level with Ayers. I question whether there has ever been an opportunity to demonstrate his level of comfort with McCarthy.

Let us return to McCarthy’s quote:

That would be terrific.

The expression “more comfortable” is relative term, not an absolute. Bill Ayers is a good, loyal, adult-life long friend of Obama’s, with the same values and world view. There are very few people in this world that Obama would me more comfortable with.

Absolutely, it is a relative term, and McCarthy has yet to establish any evidence, or facts, that Pres Obama would be comfortable, or uncomfortable, with him.

They are both lawyers and may find kinship in discussing the trials and tribulations of law school. Though that is beyond being in the same room as McCarthy has asserted.

If McCarthy wanterd to say that Pres Obama would be uncomfortable in discussing certain issues with him, he should have been explicit and said so.

Avoid being led to the kool-aid and drinking it. Avoid the extrapolation, assumption, and commenting on what was not said.

That is McCarthy’s real point here. Bill Ayers is an unrepentent, domestic, serial bombing, terrorist, who only through poor planning failed to kill other Americans. His wife, however, did kill. This was not combat like Lee and Grant. Ayers is no different than Timothy McVeay.

Ummm, OK. But McCarthy speaks to Pres Obama’s comfort level relative to his prescence in the room vice Ayers presence in the room.

Ayers is Ayers, and I am not challenging, or excusing, anything he did.

Pres Obama has been in plenty of rooms with plenty of people, beginning with the Republican leadership, and has not been uncomfortable.

Your implication is Obama is “not all that bad.” Sorry, you’re incorrect.

I implied no such thing. I have said no such thing. This is exactly my point. Making unsubstatiated assertions unsupported by any facts. You are doing it and McCarthy has done it. Your using quotes is intellectually dishonset.

Moreover, I asked a question. Are you ever going to address it? How can one person know what makes another person comfortable?

Has McCarthy ever been in a room with Pres Obama and observed his comfort level? And, what evidence is provided to support the assertion that Pres Obama is more comfortable with one over another? Especially in light of the fact that Pres Obama has been in plenty of rooms with plenty of people who he might disagree with, and yet remained comfortable?
#102

On May 25th, 2010 at 11:15 pm, zyzzyg said:

On May 25th, 2010 at 10:33 pm, SHoward said: #104

I think I’m about to spring a trap, but here goes.

You are wellcome to spring a trap. If and when I am am caught in one, I will certainly admit it. Though I generally just ask questions and do my best to address questions directed at me.

I have one certain observation about Ziggy: I have seen him state his own personal position before, and more often than not I actually agree with it.

Ummm, OK.

That’s what puzzles me so about this thread. (Since you’re here) Why on earth argue that particular point?

Because it demonstrates that assertions require some proof. That assertions allow for extrapolations that are untrue. That statements built on a foundation of sand must be challenged.

Good grief, I have repeated said that Pres Obama should be taken to task. Taken to task over facts, provable facts and not conjecture or speculation. No ‘fish stories’.

You are right that words mean things, but for crying out loud the intent of the statement was clear from the context, and you seemed to ignore that.

Yes, and thank you for agreeing that words mean things.

Ummm, go ahead and explain the context. I viewed the statement literally and simply asked a question.

If there’s any real beef I have with you it’s that, not neccessarily your personal political position.

It is not about anyone’s political position. My political position has nothing to do with the questions I have asked. It is about the assertions made and providing the facts to support that contention.

Like it or not, Pres Obama has demonstrated his ability to be comfortable in a room with a spectrum of individuals who have many views. McCarthy suggesting any relative level of discomfort because of who is in the room, requires proof.
#103

On May 25th, 2010 at 11:19 pm, dcbprime said:

gnat
#104

On May 25th, 2010 at 11:34 pm, SHoward said:

Okay, last post.

Umm, Zig, the one doing the springing is usually the one getting caught. Since I guess I must explain, I meant that I was about to create issues for myself, not for you. If I meant that, I would have stated something like ‘about to trap ziggy.’

As for the assertion, since you cannot state the contrary is true, you really can’t say McCarthy is wrong. As some other posters have pointed out, you’re speculating too.

I guess as far as taking Obambi to task, maybe some here have been this (insert reference to posterior passage here) when doing that. But should we be so anal with our own side? Context? Here goes.

When describing one’s political views in contrast to the views of someone else, it is not out of line to make exactly the statement McCarthy made. Saying Obambi is more comfortable with Ayers than McCarthy is an acceptable way to state Obambi more strongly agrees with Ayers than McCarthy, since it was in the context of beliefs and values.

I would say you probably shouldn’t have cherry-picked the statement. That’s the impression most of us here seem to have about your line of arguement. The statement wasn’t just hanging out in orbit, there were plenty of other words with it.

Back to taking to task, I would also add that the statement has a lower level of importance. You have a point that we shouldn’t let too much carp fly from our own side, either, but is this particular item really that big of a deal?

This thread may not be specifically about political beliefs. I was making a much more general statement regarding your comments I’ve seen in the past. Are we serving our side, if we are indeed on the same side, by arguing over this minutia? Would you prefer none of us respond to anything you say, as some have suggested?
#105

On May 26th, 2010 at 12:12 am, dadinseattle said:

It’s good to see that not just the women in our society have the guts to tell it like it is.

We have a governing class that is too often comfortable with anti-American radicals, with rogue and dysfunctional governments that blame America for their problems, and with Muslim Brotherhood ideologues who abhor individual liberty, capitalism, freedom of conscience, and, in general, Western enlightenment. To this president and his government, I am the problem.

Where is the LA Times tape? Could it be that this tape alone would confirm most of what is asserted?
He has proven he is who he is, over and over, and it shows to anyone with a scintilla of common sense.
#106

On May 26th, 2010 at 8:21 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

On May 25th, 2010 at 8:22 pm, Virginia Patriot said:

… McCarthyism

Turns out old Joe was right……….

Yes, indeed, he was.

When the Soviet Union fell, and the KGB records were made available for public inspection, many of the people that McCarthy had fingered as communists were confirmed as such by the KGB’s own records.

Senator Joe McCarthy was right.

And the problem is worse today than it was then.

Today, the Communists control the House, the Senate, the Presidency, the Vice-Presidency, the cabinet positions.

And they are one justice away from controlling the Supreme Court.
#107

On May 26th, 2010 at 9:05 am, granite said:

On May 25th, 2010 at 8:29 pm, Major O said:

Absolutely correct and very well said.
My thoughts exactly as to what the buffoon-relief-in-chief ZZZZZZZ…..and othwer do here.
He is most definitely not alone.

Again, kudos to you for your accurate post.
#108

On May 26th, 2010 at 9:07 am, granite said:

…and others do….

Apologies….
#109

On May 26th, 2010 at 9:30 am, spaceycakes said:

ah, fer the love of…not again.
#110

On May 26th, 2010 at 10:33 am, Brian72 said:

This ziggy person absolutely must be a lawyer. No doubt about it.

Yes, I am assuming, but it is obvious.

He insists on taking and holding one little tiny hill, while ignoring the larger battlefield. Just rule it out conveniently for the purpose of winning an argument no one else cares about.

Mr. McCarthy is expressing an opinion based on observation of a pattern of facts, not making a factual assertion.

He happens to be correct about his opinion.
Is there any doubt that if the President were to talk with Mr.McCarthy face to face about the Constitution, the struggle against Islamic Terrorism to preserve the American tradition of individual liberty against the threat of Sharia Law, the President would indeed become very uncomfortable because he would make the same old tired arguments of the standard left wing college professor and lose the argument on the merits.

When he begins losing the argument, he most certainly does become uncomfortable.
He gets very visibly irritated and attempts to dismiss the opposition and change the subject.

We see this all the time when he does engage the other side rather than demonize and intimidate through surrogates to silence the debate on the merits. It doesn’t last very long, because the conservative arguments make too much sense, and have large majorities of the American people agreeing with them.
So, Obama must push forward with raw power tactics against the tide of his own countrymen to accomplish his ideological goals before the people wise up and take his power away.
This has been the plan all along, in my opinion.

Obama is not a stupid man.
He knows that he lied to the country to get through the election and gain the power to change this nation in ways that most of the people find abhorrent.

Being exposed for what he really is before the transformation is made irreversible is what worries him the most, hence his discomfort with an articulate conservative who understands exactly what he has been up to.
#111

On May 26th, 2010 at 11:16 am, Blackstone said:

Being exposed for what he really is before the transformation is made irreversible is what worries him the most

Him and zyg both. Yes, that’s an assumption, too, based on an observation of a pattern of facts.

Excellent post, by the way.
#112

On May 26th, 2010 at 11:42 am, Brian72 said:

On May 26th, 2010 at 11:16 am, Blackstone said:

Excellent post, by the way.

Thanks. I’m not a professional litigator, but I try
#113

On May 26th, 2010 at 12:37 pm, zyzzyg said:

On May 25th, 2010 at 11:34 pm, SHoward said: #110

Okay, last post.

OK.

Umm, Zig, the one doing the springing is usually the one getting caught. Since I guess I must explain, I meant that I was about to create issues for myself, not for you. If I meant that, I would have stated something like ‘about to trap ziggy.’

Words have meaning and you (global) should say what you mean and mean what you say. True, you did not say who the trap was for, or not for. Absent saying what you meant, I took liberties.

As for the assertion, since you cannot state the contrary is true, you really can’t say McCarthy is wrong. As some other posters have pointed out, you’re speculating too.

Nope. I never said the contrary is true. I never said McCarthy is wrong. I am not speculating.

I asked a question. McCarthy’s assertion about the comfort level of Pres Obama with McCarthy in the room requires proof. I am asking for proof of his assertion.

I have pointed out that I agree Obama would be comfortable with Ayers. Obama has been in rooms with his opponents and has been comfortable. True, or false?

I guess as far as taking Obambi to task, maybe some here have been this (insert reference to posterior passage here) when doing that. But should we be so anal with our own side? Context? Here goes.

OK. But, why am I taken to task for asking a question?

When describing one’s political views in contrast to the views of someone else, it is not out of line to make exactly the statement McCarthy made. Saying Obambi is more comfortable with Ayers than McCarthy is an acceptable way to state Obambi more strongly agrees with Ayers than McCarthy, since it was in the context of beliefs and values.

Absolutely. I agree. Make any statement you want. But, then you have to back it up with facts.

McCarthy’s assertion is a house of cards built on a foundation of sand without proof.

I would say you probably shouldn’t have cherry-picked the statement. That’s the impression most of us here seem to have about your line of arguement. The statement wasn’t just hanging out in orbit, there were plenty of other words with it.

I commented on what was provided in the excerpt. Is it fair to say that the excerpt was cherry picked from the book? I suppose I could have deconstructed the entire paragraph, or the entire three paragraph excerpt cherry picked from the book. I didn’t, so be it.

Back to taking to task, I would also add that the statement has a lower level of importance. You have a point that we shouldn’t let too much carp fly from our own side, either, but is this particular item really that big of a deal?

I am not making it a big deal. I asked a couple of questions. I have been challenged and asked questions. I have responded. In no way do I believe that asking questions is a big deal.

This thread may not be specifically about political beliefs. I was making a much more general statement regarding your comments I’ve seen in the past. Are we serving our side, if we are indeed on the same side, by arguing over this minutia? Would you prefer none of us respond to anything you say, as some have suggested?

I am not arguing over minutia. I am doing as I have always done, commenting on what MM posts. I have not commented on what others have said in response to what MM has posted. Others have taken me to task and I have responded to them.

As for our side, we are not served well by making unsubstatiated assertions. Especially, assertions that can be easily knocked down by facts. Has Obama been in a room with conservatives and/or republicans and been comfortable?

You (global) are welcome to do as you will as long as MM’s terms of use are followed.

I will continue to do what I do. Comment on what MM posts, avoid commenting on what others have said in response to what MM posts, and respond to those who take me to task for my comments. And, yes there is at least one poster who I ignore. So, it is possible.

My general sense is that you are extending some sort of olive branch. This might be a good thing if you also approach those who take me to task. Maybe by saying something like, ‘Zyzzyg is asking a question, answer or don’t answer it, but calling Zyzzyg names is less than helpful and does not advance the discussion.’

I understand you saying this is your last post, to mean on this thread. Well, I look forward to future discussions on other threads.
#114

On May 26th, 2010 at 2:31 pm, spaceycakes said:

And, yes there is at least one poster who I ignore.

oh please, please, PLEEEZ let it be me.
#115

On May 26th, 2010 at 2:35 pm, granite said:

On May 26th, 2010 at 2:31 pm, spaceycakes said:

Spacey:
We are blessed (?cursed?) to have a poster who continually never fails to illustrate the truth of one of the tips that one of my residents gave me during my internship:
“The longer you make your note, the less likely that someone is going to bother to read it.”
#116

On May 26th, 2010 at 2:37 pm, spaceycakes said:

granite–exactly.

where did you go to medical school?