http://onenewsnow.com/national-security/2015/02/22/obama-scolded-we%E2%80%99re-fighting-terrorists-%E2%80%A6-you%E2%80%99re-fighting-poverty#.VOvqQIY8KK0

Obama scolded: We’re fighting terrorists … you’re fighting poverty?

While Syria is executing ISIS prisoners and Egypt is bombing ISIS strongholds to send signs to the terrorist group that it cannot get away with burning and beheading their citizens, Obama is launching a welfare poverty campaign to keep Muslim youth out of poverty as a so-called deterrent from joining ISIS.

A Closer LookAmerican Center for Law and Justice Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow calls President Barack Obama out on his aversion to deal with the Islamic Terrorists like the leader of a superpower should.

Sekulow, Jay (ACLJ)“Now we know why apocalyptic jihadists rule vast stretches of the Middle East, beheading and burning alive all who oppose them,” Sekulow insisted in his column on FoxNews.com. “Because it’s too hard to start a business in Syria.”

Sekulow was mocking the continuing evasive effort the White House is putting forth to so that it doesn’t have to hit the Islamic terrorist issue on the head.

“At least that’s the verdict of State Department spokesperson Marie Harf, who declared earlier this week that fighting the Islamic State terror group, or ISIS, means focusing on ‘root causes,’ like economic conditions that make it easier for young Muslim men to ‘pick up an AK-47 instead of trying to start a business,’” Sekulow continued. “She was roundly mocked for this statement, but was only giving voice to the president’s own ideology.”

Harf was echoing the words Obama wrote down in the Los Angeles Times last week that further diminished many Americans’ view of him as being able to represent the United States as a viable commander-in-chief.

“Efforts to counter violent extremism will only succeed if citizens can address legitimate grievances through the democratic process and express themselves through strong civil societies,” Obama stated. “Those efforts must be matched by economic, educational and entrepreneurial development so people have hope for a life of dignity.”

You’re fighting the wrong war, Mr. President

Unable to comprehend what exactly it is the president is doing, Sekulow says he knows one thing … Obama is fighting the wrong war.

“This is the language of an anti-poverty program — more suitable for the war on poverty launched in the 1960’s by then-President Lyndon B. Johnson,” Sekulow argues. “This is not the language of war … And it betrays willful ignorance of the facts and of the nature of our enemy.”

In fact, Sekulow argues that Obama couldn’t be further off the mark in his contention that Muslim youth are joining ISIS and other terror groups to get out of poverty.

“There is no significant connection between poverty and jihadist terror,” Sekulow asserts. “Of the 10 poorest nations in the world, only one — Somalia — is on the global index of the Top 10 most affected by terrorism.”

Showing the baselessness of Obama’s attempt to link jihadism with poverty, Sekulow brings up several countries where ISIS has taken over areas as its breeding grounds — European nations where financial hardships are scarcely a part of the equation when it comes to reasons for joining jihad.

“Indeed, terrorists are flocking to the ISIS banner from Western Europe, a place where it is indeed easier to ‘start a business’ than to “pick up an AK-47,” Sekulow sarcastically points out. “France, Germany and Britain are among the wealthiest nations on Earth and feature welfare states more lavish than America’s … Yet more British Muslims are reportedly fighting for ISIS than have voluntarily joined the British Army.”

Sekulow uses other examples to paint the picture against Obama’s false claim more vividly, showing that merciless Muslim terrorists are actually turning to terrorism out of their wealth … not poverty.

“The most notorious terrorists are often wealthy, coming from educated backgrounds,” Sekulow added. “Usama bin Laden came from a wealthy Saudi family. Mohamed Atta — one of the key leaders of the 9/11 attacks — was an architect. ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has advanced degrees from the University of Baghdad.”

The attorney based out of ACLJ’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., points to the real reason men join Islamic terrorist groups — which the president should be well aware of and own up to — instead of playing dodge ball with the issue.

“Jihadists are motivated by religious belief, not by poverty,” Sekulow attests.

President’s analysis off the mark

Sekulow isn’t the only one exposing the absurdity of Obama’s political argument that the chief motivator bringing people into jihad is economic hardship.

“There is a temptation to rehearse this observation — that jihadists are modern secular people, with modern political concerns, wearing medieval religious disguise — and make it fit the Islamic State,” The Atantic’s Graeme Wood explains. “In fact, much of what the group does looks nonsensical except in light of a sincere, carefully considered commitment to returning civilization to a seventh-century legal environment, and ultimately to bringing about the apocalypse.”

Wood, who penned Rise of ISIS, a Threat We Can’t Ignore, argues that the only way to get rid of ISIS is through a time-tested overwhelming force, noting that “starting a business” is futile when “the apocalypse is at stake.”

“In fact, we faced and defeated the precursor to ISIS before. ISIS spawned directly from Al Qaeda in Iraq, and by the end of the Surge (where we used crushing force to defeat terrorist militias) Al Qaeda in Iraq was largely defeated, unable to threaten the Iraqi government,” Wood informed. “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi spent time in American custody — just another no-name terrorist crowding Iraq’s detention facilities.”

The author says the commander-in-chief simply doesn’t want to win the war on terror as he implements a strategy that guarantees the enemy’s success.

“But the Obama administration threw away victory, withdrawing our troops and then withholding support from key allies until it was almost too late,” Wood continued. “Al Qaeda in Iraq gained new life in Syria (as ISIS), then poured back into Iraq, triggering the geopolitical crisis we face today.”

Wood argues that the U.S. is now fighting a war that the president is continually trying to redefine.

“Now we’re left with the worst of both worlds — an administration that is plainly not committed to using the necessary force to defeat our enemies while mouthing platitudes about economic opportunity that seemed purposefully designed to make Americans complacent about the threat,” Wood contends. “As a result, we neither fight with the force required nor do we actually do anything about the poverty and lack of opportunity that the administration says is the real ‘root cause’ of the conflict. What’s the administration’s plan for new tech start-ups in Mosul?”

Wood insists that Obama is doing much more than just playing with words — he’s playing with American soldiers and citizens’ lives.

“The situation is both absurd and tragic,” Wood expressed. “Absurd, because the language of new businesses and ‘legitimate grievances’ is virtual self-parody. Tragic, because our willful blindness and lack of will is costing lives and harming our national security.”

He ends up calling out Obama latest repackaging of the war as a calamity in and of itself, faulting the president for politicizing a deadly threat to meet his administration’s foreign agenda.

“Our fight against ISIS is a real war, not a fake ‘war on poverty’ or a politically correct war on ‘extremism,’” Wood concludes. “And in real war, you fight your enemy until he surrenders or ceases to exist.”