Lethal Engagement

Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine's editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Russian, U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He is the author of the critically acclaimed and best-selling, United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror. His new book is High Noon For America. He is the host of Frontpage’s television show, The Glazov Gang, and he can be reached at jamieglazov11@gmail.com. Visit his site at JamieGlazov.com.


Pages: 1 2

FP: Share with us the meaning behind the phrase “manic multilateralism” that you use in your book to describe President Obama’s disposition to the Muslim world.

Klein: What in Lethal Engagement I call “manic multilateralism” is an uncritical deference to global norms and international consensus, irrespective of the consequences- a mania for treaties and deference to the will of international bodies like the United Nations that make our national sovereignty subservient. The pursuit of international approval, particularly approval in the Muslim world, is putting American lives and liberties at risk.

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. When he made his annual pilgrimage to the United Nations last month to address the General Assembly, he renewed his naive and dangerous calls for ‘a world without nuclear weapons’ and promised to keep the door ‘open to diplomacy’ with Iran, which is advancing its nuclear arms program every day without any real consequences.

Obama wants to engage with our enemies like Iran and Syria while coming down hard on one of our closest allies, Israel. He said that he wants to “re-engage” with the anti-Western United Nations. Indeed, he promised to address America’s “priorities” in the UN and warned that not following “the United Nation’s demands” (sic) would make “all people less safe.”

In that spirit, and as a troubling demonstration of his desired partnership with the Muslim world, President Obama has lent legitimacy to the worst body of all in the United Nations, by joining the UN Human Rights Council. Even the hopelessly liberal New York Times called the Human Rights Council “dysfunctional.”  Despite its Orwellian name, the Human Rights Council is run by the world’s worst human rights abusers, and dominated by the Islamic bloc of member states.  It was the Human Rights Council that initiated the Islamists’ infamous “defamation of religions” resolutions and then pressured the General Assembly to pass them. The Obama administration actually co-sponsored with Egypt a resolution aimed at limiting free expression of the media if what they say is regarded as religious stereotyping. The administration’s representatives on this dysfunctional UN  body have also stood by while Israel has been made its whipping boy.

Let’s call Obama’s engagement policies what they really are — lethal engagements, i.e., appeasement.

FP: In your book, you discuss the dangerous connection between the international norms produced by Islamic-dominated United Nations bodies such as the Human Rights Council and the judicial activists sitting in our federal courts who believe that foreign and international laws should be used in interpreting the U.S. Constitution. Please explain.

Klein: Our activist courts are increasingly bent on internationalizing the U.S. Constitution and U.S. law, particularly in the realm of human rights. This trend in the judiciary is an example of what the Hudson Institute Fellow John Fonte has called “transnationalism,” the global movement to merge the economic, social and legal systems of countries without regard to national sovereignty. President Obama’s two picks for the Supreme Court – Justices Sotomayor and Kagan – reinforce this trend.

The Islamists, with their anti-Western allies, have enormous sway in the UN General Assembly and Human Rights Council, in which international legal norms are created and given global legitimacy. The Islamists’ power to influence those norms will lead to laws with a decidedly Sharia-friendly bias. The clearest examples are the series of resolutions passed by both UN bodies that declare ‘defamation of religions’ (in which only Islam is named) as a violation of international law that is not protected by the right of free expression. Transnational judges rely upon these very international norms to interpret our constitutional provisions in ways that best conform to international law.  As American constitutional law morphs into international law, international law morphs into Sharia law — until eventually, Sharia law may well be declared “constitutional” and our First Amendment right of free speech is thrown under the bus. 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.”

FP: Share with the readers the steps you recommend in Lethal Engagement to rescue our country from the dangers you have described.

Klein: In the short term, we need more mass rallies such as the Tea Party movement protests, Glenn Beck’s Restore America rally and rallies protesting the building of the Ground Zero mosque. But beyond the rallies and a vote to kick out as many progressives as we can from Congress on November 2nd, I think we need to take the offense. In Lethal Engagement, I lay out a multi-pronged strategy that includes, for example, bringing lawsuits against the ACLU challenging their tax-exempt status, and against school boards and employers for unlawfully discriminating in favor of Muslim students and employees by giving them special accommodations to the detriment of non-Muslims. We need to do this rather than always letting the ACLU and the Council on American-Islamic Relations frame the legal issues as the plaintiffs.  I also recommend a number of constitutional amendments to protect ourselves against the infiltration of Sharia, even if it means the convening of a constitutional convention to do so.

FP: Joseph A. Klein, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.

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.