Lethal Engagement


Pages: 1 2

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Joseph A. Klein, an attorney with a Harvard Law School degree who writes for Frontpagemag.com and Canada Free Press as their United Nations correspondent. He is also a featured blogger for NewsReal Blog, where he has written extensively on the Ground Zero Mosque controversy. A guest on many radio and TV shows, including “Fox & Friends,” he is the author of the new book, Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations and Radical Islam.

FP: Joseph A. Klein, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Let’s begin with what inspired you to write this book.

Klein: Thank you for having me.

Have you ever remembered a United States President from either party who has traveled abroad and apologized repeatedly for America’s alleged wrong-doing? That’s what President Obama has done, including when he went to Cairo as part of his never-ending aggressive outreach to the Muslim world.  He apologized to them for America’s the West’s alleged misdeeds and promised to make amends. Add to that President Obama’s policy of unconditional engagement with the thugs of Iran without preconditions.

For the first time that I can remember under either party’s administration, I am truly nervous for our country’s future. What kind of America will our children be inheriting from us?

That’s why I felt compelled to write Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations and Radical Islam. It is intended as a wake-up call for the American people to do everything that we can lawfully do to stop this madness.

FP: How has your experience in researching and writing about the United Nations, along with your legal background, helped you in writing this book?

Klein: I have studied the United Nations for many years and have watched it degenerate into an anti-Western echo chamber that does more harm than good. I wrote about the UN’s dangers to American sovereignty and freedoms in my previous book, Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom.” In my new book Lethal Engagement, I focus on the perfect storm revolving around the increasing Islamicization of key UN bodies – particularly the ones that produce influential international norms- and President Obama’s key priorities to improve America’s standing with the Muslim world at all costs, to elevate the United Nations (where radical Muslims exert so much influence) to a central place in his foreign policy and  to force-fit

U.S. foreign policy into the straightjacket of UN-inspired international norms. As a United Nations correspondent for FrontPage Magazine and Canada Free Press, I have been able to gain access to and ask questions of high level UN officials including Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, our UN Ambassador Susan Rice, the Israeli UN ambassador and Islamic delegates. Their answers are included in Lethal Engagement along with the results of more than a year of extensive research. My legal background, including my intensive study of constitutional law at Harvard Law School under the late Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, has helped me analyze the implications of a very disturbing trend I see in recent Supreme Court decisions that I expect will get even worse as a result of President Obama’s two nominees now sitting on the Court. The trend I am talking about are Supreme Court decisions tending to internationalize the U.S. Constitution.

FP: Your thoughts on Sharia and how it poses a threat to us?

Klein: Sharia (Islamic law) is a political-legal system that is wedded to the religion of Islam. Separation of Mosque and State is foreign to Islamic ideology.

Here are some examples of mainstream Islamic laws which, along with others, are discussed in more detail in my book Lethal Engagement. Sharia is at complee odds with the individual liberties and dignity embodied in the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence:

(*) Jihad, defined as “to war against non-Muslims to establish the religion,” is the duty of every Muslim. The Koran alone has over 100 verses commanding violence against non-believers.

(*) It is a crime (punishable by death) to “defame” Islam or its prophet Muhammed.

(*) A percentage of Zakat (charity money) must go towards jihad. We have seen this part of Sharia law in play with the conviction of the Holy Land Foundation for giving donations to Hamas. Non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims under Sharia.

(*) Women are not equal to men. The testimony of a woman in court is half the value of a man, for example. Husbands are permitted to beat their wives if their wives are disrespectful.

(*) It is obligatory for a Muslim obeying Sharia law to lie if the purpose is to abide by Islam’s commandments.

FP: Expand on your view of Obama and how he has dealt with the threat we face.

Klein: Obama’s actions and speeches since being inaugurated leave little question in my mind that he is enabling radical Islamists to achieve a number of their lethal objectives at the expense of our national security and the liberties we have long taken for granted in the United States of America. The evidence that I describe and cite with extensive sources is overwhelming.

For example, in his first days in office Obama signed an Executive Order tying the hands of our interrogators trying to elicit time sensitive information from suspected Islamic terrorists.

Obama’s Department of Justice head, Attorney General Eric Holder seemed to inexplicably welcome the possibility of a civilian trial for the mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Muhammad in lower Manhattan. There is still no decision with respect to Khalid, but other Islamic terrorist suspects are being given full constitutional rights in a civil trial.

On November 5th, 2009 a Muslim soldier named Nidal Malik Hasan murdered 14 people at Fort Hood, Texas. The ideological source of Hasan’s Islamic-inspired massacre seemed irrelevant to the White House. The same was true about the Christmas Day bomber. To the contrary, the Obama administration refuses to use ‘Islamic’ and ‘terrorism’ in the same sentence.

At this year’s White House Ramadan dinner, where Obama made known his feelings about the Ground Zero mosque, at least two radical Islamists were invited.

I point to Obama’s speech in Cairo last year as a flashpoint for a new tone in relations between the White House and the Muslim world. In his outreach to the Muslim world in Cairo last year, for example,Obama promised to do all that he can to ensure there is nothing in our laws to impede ‘Muslim citizens practicing religion as they see fit.’ He also promised to loosen restrictions on Islamic charities, which had been put in place to protect against front organizatins funding jihad.

As I describe in detail in Lethal Engagement, our President is playing right into the Islamists’ stealth strategy to undermine American laws, financial systems and democratic values that get in the way of radical Islamic priorities. This strategy includes manipulating our own institutions against us.

Pages: 1 2

  • The dragonfly

    It is crystal clear that the actual presidency have a defined target… to allow to arab world to snatch the free world, with the very kind help of the USA president, not less.
    I think that there were at least a few who warned the USA about it, but they were silenced, as they are today. It's time to wake up America before it is too late.
    The invasion has started and will perpetuate if amercains stay on the watch instead of reacting.
    I am very apprehensive about our tomorrow,
    The Dragonfly

  • SHmuelHaLevi

    Indeed it is high time to be deeply concerned about the plans being developed by Saotoro Obama. But even more so it is high time to prepare to take on Islam as a mortal enemy on the march. Nonsense to the pipe dream of a "moderate" Islam. There never was or will be any such thing.
    Unless the West concedes that defeating Islam in all fronts is the only answer to their violent expansion, the forecast is grim.

  • Chezwick_Mac

    Sharia is the key. Simply put, it is the legal expression of Islam. But from a purely tactical standpoint, it's much harder for the media and academe to demonize opponents of Sharia than opponents of Islam. By focusing on it, we could make Sharia a dirty word in our political discourse, one that even Muslims would be reluctant to utter. And every time that Muslims push for a new concession in their stealth Jihad, there would ideally be a cacophony of opposition, all based on the argument of "creeping Sharia".

    The ultimate objective would be to identify Islam in the minds of people with its most inhumane legal tenets, the hudud punishments of lapidation, amputation, and the murder of apostates. Folks would finally comprehend that whatever good – if any – there is in Islam, it is canceled out by these barbaric punishments. And since the barbarisms are an undeniable part of the legal code, there is no way for apologists to disassociate them from Islam, as they have done so effectively via terrorism and the disingenuous "tiny minority of extremists" argument.

    • stephencuz

      You're absolutely right on Chez. The problem is with so many not recognizing the very real threat of Sharia and how it begins in modest doses. I refer to Halal foods. How can we argue against such things? The issue should never be about "religion" but rather the law. We cannot fight what a person believes but we can fight what laws are implemented. First is indoctrination of local governments to accept halal only in schools, dress codes, gender segregation in public pools, accommodations for Ramadan, hajib, burqa, etc. All things that are taboo to fight (seemingly) and are unwelcome issues to local Mayors and City Councils. But this is where the fight must be.

  • flowerknife_us

    Let us not forget that Obama himself said we could "absorb" another 9/11.

  • Andres de Alamaya

    The man is an enigma and probably also an enigma to himself. Ofspring of racially mixed couples often suffer from identity problems. If he truly wanted to appease the hotheads of Islam, he'd have to get all American troops out of Muslim lands, yet he has been far more aggressive than Bush was in tracking down and killing Taliban in the tribal areas of Pakistan. On the other hand, when it comes to homeland security he comes across like a perfect Trojan Horse for the enemy. On the one hand he behaves like a Marxist and shows a genuine hate for the rich. On the other hand he bails out banks that never asked to be bailed out. One thing is clear: He is the worst thing that has ever happened to America.

    • USMCSniper

      International leaders view Obama as Putin does, calling him "Obambi" because he views Obama as not only naive, but as a weak president who can be easily intimidated, Other world leaders also share this view of Obama.

      • Guest

        The psychologists of every major nation have done a completely thorough work-up on this POS and know exactly what makes him tick. He's the Blunder we're Under.

    • bubba4

      TARP was under Bush. How has Obama shown "genuine hate for the rich"….not just hate…but GENUINE hate? LOL

  • Peter Lubrano

    no matter hgow you slice it, president Obama's personal agenda is to destroy America as we know it. Supported by a very liberal press and liberal academia this man's background and his radical ideology is diismissed as right wing extremism.
    This president supported by an extreme left ideology whihc controls the demoocratic party and with majoritiers in both houses of congress this nation is at risk. yet there are many, from both sides of the aisle, giving this president the benefit of the doubt even though they hear otherwise. to accept this man's lies and not ask the hard questions we undermine our own nationa security and accept him as well intentioned man….to the contrary, this president is in rerality The manchurian candidate that is like a trojan horse waiting to strike. His discussionbs with the U.N. looking to impose upon U.S. citizens denial of their second amedment rights, the right to bear arms, is a process already in motion. We need to be vgilant and informed in order to stoop this man from tra nsforming our nation. He is cappableofdoing that and he will not be deflercted from doing what he has prepared for all of his life!

  • ArchangelMichael

    It occurs to me that nothing short of the public establishment of the Christian religion will suffice to face down this threat. It entails introducing, and rigorously enforcing, a blasphemy law under the conviction that Islam is a false religion and that it shall be a crime to call God to witness in favour of the impositon of sharia.

    • Gylippus

      Interesting. Though I think most people who take the time to consider the issue can understand the need to oppose Jihadism without calling for the establishment of state religion. We iinhereted a cutlure that purged itself (through fire and blood) of the curse of religious imperialism. Our Jihadist enemies have not. It is our task to teach then that lesson too. The first step is to recognize their methods

      Thanks Mr. Glazov and Mr. Klein for informing us in this respect.

      • Guest

        "… the need to oppose Jihadism without calling for the establishment of state religion. We iinhereted a cutlure that purged itself (through fire and blood) of the curse of religious imperialism.
        ****
        While no one was looking the anti-theistic secular religion of Marxism was established in America by a slow process of Gramscian subversion. Whether you realize it or not it is now America's state religion. I suggest you read "The Politics of Bad Faith" by David Horowitz. Pay attention to his essay therein on on The Religious Roots of Radicalism.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    I would like the title of Mr. Klein’s book a whole lot better if he left the word “radical” out of the title. By including the word “radical” in the title, he is adhering to the leftist’s agenda to make innocent Americans believe that there are two versions of Islam, one that is moderate and peaceful in which comprise the vast majority of Muhammadans and the radicals, which according to GWB only comprise a tiny minority. However, the reality is very different.

    Moreover, with respect to constitutional amendments, all we need really is one constitutional amendment to ban and outlaw all Muhammadan immigration because you can’t sustain freedom and Muhammadan immigration at the same time. You can have one or the other, but you can’t have both of them.

    Furthermore, since 9/11 this country spends hundreds of billions of dollars on national security just to accommodate Muhammadans and their excess baggage. Nevertheless, we are broke. We can’t afford to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on national security just to accommodate Muhammadan immigrants and their excess baggage. Hence, we need to prioritize by making tough decisions, and by banning and outlawing Muhammadan immigration we can save hundreds of billions of dollars, as no Muhammadans in America equates to no Islamic terrorist attacks.

    Furthermore, the free exercise clause of the First Amendment doesn’t protect Islam because Islam in reality isn’t a true religion. Instead, it is a militant theo-political totalitarian ideology that seeks to subjugate the world via the imposition of Sharia as its main goal. The reality is Islam masquerades as being a religion to infiltrate the societies it intends to subjugate and subsume.

    As a matter of fact, even though there has been massive Muhammadan immigration throughout Western Europe, nowhere have those Muhammadan immigrants assimilated and integrated like other immigrant groups. Instead, the majority has formed Muhammadan no-go zones ruled by Sharia and in direct contravention to the laws of the states in which they reside. Not to mention that it is Muhammadan immigrants that is responsible for a disproportionate amount of the crimes committed wherever they have migrated in mass. Hence, it couldn’t be more obvious that their purpose is not to assimilate and integrate, but instead it is to dominate and subjugate.

    Indeed, what faith-based religion forbids the freedom of conscience? What faith-based religion punishes blasphemy and apostasy under the pain of death? What faith-based religion restricts the freedom of speech? What faith-based religion systematically persecutes and often violently oppresses females and non-Muslims? What faith-based religion seeks death for those it deems as insulting and defaming Islam? What faith-based religion mandates its adherents wage jihad in the cause of Allah for the spread of Islam? The answer to all of those questions is no faith-based religions do such things. Only Islam in stark contrast to faith-based religions does those things exactly because it isn’t a faith-based religion but instead a militant theo-political totalitarian ideology that seeks to dominate and subjugate the world as its main mission.

  • Wesley69

    The US needs to throw the UN out of the US. The Constitution needs to be the highest law in this country. To hell with International Law! As long as IL does not try to impose a government, limits on freedom or a religion, then it can regulate affairs between countries, but surrender our sovereignty to the UN??? Our Philosopher King with his anti-colonial attitude may want to do this to punish the US for past injustices, but WE THE PEOPLE do not share his views. November election can not come fast enough. It is time to take our country back from these leftist Saul Alinsky disciples. I do agree with Mr. Klein about calling for a Constitutional Convention. It is time to get a lot of things straight.

    All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
    Thomas Jefferson

  • bubba4

    I could write a book called "Lethal Engagement: How Joseph Klein buggers farm animals"…
    the only difference between our two books would be that I took more time to do research.

    • Joseph Klein

      bubba4 – the intellectual prowess you have demonstrated with this comment and others you have made on this board is so staggering that not even President Obama himself could possibly compete.

      • stephencuz

        You tell him Mr. Klein! Morons like him actually make the case against themselves. What a dolt he is.

      • bubba4

        I didn't know you'd be reading posts or I would have taken longer to say the same thing…and that is this. I could write such a book. Write all sorts of smears about you…my "opinions" of what your actions mean and what you think and feel about things…all as it relates to you buggering farm animals. I don't think you'd appreciate that very much.

        That's the beauty of the opinion based book, I can lie through my teeth…it's my opinion. That time you went to ride horses…I know what it was really about.

        "For the first time that I can remember under either party’s administration, I am truly nervous for our country’s future. What kind of America will our children be inheriting from us?"

        I guess it comes down to this. I don't believe you. So I made a joke to make fun of your entire made up Sharia crisis and all the opinion based facts with which you make your argument. Of course, no one wants Sharia law (except a tiny blip of extremists), it's backward and ancient…I don't want it anymore than I want Mosaic law or Babylonian law or anything else…so what? You're just using it to try to scare people who are in no way under threat from the menacing demon of sharia law. This goes for pretty much everyone on this board.

        You smear the new Supreme Court Justices and you even make Obama's standing up for the Constitution somehow bowing to Muslims.

        "For example, President Obama has said that the U.S. has a “moral responsibility” to lead the way towards ‘a world without nuclear weapons’ even as he permits Iran to continue developing its nuclear arms capability."

        Really? You think that's a fair take on the situation?

        "After all, as President Obama said in his Cairo speech, we must not do anything to impede the Islamists “from practicing religion as they see fit.”

        And you're telling us he meant Sharia law is on the way. Sigh. If your willing to be that intellectually dishonest then I guess this is all in vein anyway.

        OK…OK…in my book..I will make up a syndrome that you have..um..something like "frenzied beasticoitus" that not only makes animals incredibly sexually attractive but also makes one completely deny they have a problem and usually project their shame in the form of elaborate external phobias.

        Aww..too low brow for a guy with a Harvard Law Degree…sorry. I hope your proud of yourself. You guys rob people of any sense of well being. That's why you shop it on programs like Fox & Friends…so thanks..now I have to tell my 80 year old aunt Betty that Muslims aren't going to kill her and America isn't going to be overthrown.

        Why do you do it? To get Republicans elected, or TeaParty know-nothings….because Israel needs everyone to hate Islam…why?

        • Joseph Klein

          If you actually took the time to read my book, rather than rant on about a subject you obviously know little about, you would be able to check the 749 cited sources – many of them primary sources – for yourself. But that would take too much effort on your part and may actually make you have to think.

          Do you really even know what sharia law is? It's not just about beheadings, stonings and amputations, as you seem to think. It is also about limitations on freedom of expression if what one writes or says is considered to be derogatory of Islam. The United Nations has passed a series of resolutions declaring 'defamation of religions' to be a violation of international law.

          Read for yourself books written by former Muslims who lived for years under sharia's yoke before being able to escape and come to the United States. They have translated its tenets from their native Arabic and are warning Americans not to allow sharia to gain a foothold in our country as has happened throughout Europe. You might start with Nonie Darwish's "Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law."

          • Joseph Klein

            As for Justice Kagan, my concern – evidenced by her own past words and actions – is that she may interpret the First Amendment and other constitutional provisions through the lens of international legal norms which, as seen in UN resolutions dealing with freedom of expression, are being increasingly influenced by Islamic law. And lets not forget the expansion of Islamic legal studies at Harvard Law while she was its dean. Harvard’s Islamic Legal Studies Program developed a mission statement dedicated “to promote a deep appreciation of Islamic law as one of the world’s major legal systems.”

          • bubba4

            But I'd have to buy your book…and I don't want to encourage you. You can cite 749 "sources" or 749 "facts" but if you choose to interpret those sources and facts in some self serving way…then you leave the realm of facts and move into your realm of opinion.

            The "resolution" condemning "defamation of religion" as a human rights violation has been widely condemned, including by the Obama Administration. That's because human rights dont have anything do with the "rights' of a faith and the backward people in the world can use it to silence critics of state-sponsored faiths.

            Obama did not support this or want it. Let me guess…scary posterized red Barack Hussein on your cover does want this and is driving it, much like his support for the Constitution and plainly stating people can practice their religion "as they see fit" is ominously interpreted to be championing Sharia law.

            No one you are talking to or you book is aimed to wants Sharia or is in danger of living under it. Thanks for the warning. But this all strikes me as cheap political propaganda…an attempt to make the black guy with the funny middle name a terrible threat to america pie, puppies, and your precious bodily fluids.

            Why do you do it? The money can't be that good…but I guess if you write a niche book like this you have a built in support network to promote it, hype it and give you interviews.

            So again…I don't believe you. Have a nice day.

          • Joseph Klein

            "The "resolution" condemning "defamation of religion" as a human rights violation has been widely condemned, including by the Obama Administration."

            We are not talking about one isolated UN resolution. We are talking about a series of annual resolutions, each condemning "defamation of religions" as a violation of international law (with Islam being the only religion specifically mentioned), which originated in the United Nations Human Rights Council. The Obama administration decided to join this Council, which even the New York Times called "dysfunctional." Not only has the Obama administration decided to remain in this dysfunctional UN body while these anti-free speech resolutions continue to be passed, and sit alongside some of the worst human rights abusers in the world. It co-sponsored a resolution with Egypt condemning "the promotion by certain media of false images and negative stereotypes" and calling for action to be taken against "religious stereotyping."

          • bubba4

            "We are not talking about one isolated UN resolution."

            Well I don't have all day Joe. It was one example from several in the interview.

            As for the Human Rights Council, everyone agrees its dysfunctional. That's why the US was practically begged to get involved with it. Rice and Obama have both gone over these problems in detail and acknowledged them but are trying to do something about it from within the council. Otherwise just abolish it the way its predecessor organization was because it was seen as corrupt and overtaken by human rights abusers.

            So you disagree as some have…but that's not enough for you. Like making the resolution and the mosque Obama's desires, you make the council's problems his as well..the US joining is Obama joining. While you think it's a mistake because you think it legitimizes the council (as US membership tends to do) and no reform is possible (because it hasn't been that long joe) but there is no cause for your wild accusations and the motives, thoughts and feelings you give the Obama Administration. Is Israel not getting enough love or something?…I hope that's not what this is all about. Us goy mutts tend to think of Israel as an ally, but as a foreign nation…when some toothless body issues a resolution against Israel, I don't take it as a personal shot in the gut. Some of the resolutions the council has put out are stupid and lame yes…but it doesn't pose a threat to America.

            And the US-Egyptian "resolution" is milktoast human rights stuff" http://www.unitedstatesaction.com/documents/Oct20

            If the text becomes evil somehow because an Egyptian egghead at the UN worked on it, then what can I say… he's standing up making toothless resolutions for your right to be a hysterical alarmist.

  • Joseph Klein

    Here's hoping for your sake that your wishful thinking continues to provide you with solace.

  • dajjal

    The resolutions contribute immoral support to local blasphemy laws. The have no legal effect. Human rights covenants such as ICERD can be enforce in the World Court. They are legally binding.

    The HRC established an Ad Hoc Cmte. to code the resoluions into a protocol to ICERD. Few know about this and none are doing anything to stop it. It can't be stopped, it can only be made too costly for Islam to pursue.

    ICERD, ICCPR & CPPCG contain provisions which, if enforced, would require Islam to be proscribed by law. We can demand enforcement. That is the mission of the International Qur'an P:etition. http://islamexposed.blogspot.com/2010/09/internat

    Please sign it and promote it, share it as widely as you can.