Archive for the ‘Terrorism’ Category

Obama’s USDA Threatens States With EBT Shutdown – Food Riots To Follow

Wednesday, October 16th, 2013

This dictator isn’t playing around.  Those of you who had thought he was just another typical politician are in for one Hell of a wake-up call.   The following was posted at FreeRepublic, and the original source for the letter was a foodbank’s page on Facebook.  There are other reports in media that seem to verify the letter’s authenticity. If this is a hoax, it’s fooling larger news outlets too.  (Click image for full size view):

Now we know why Republicans are shaking in their shoes. It’s not the usual DC-Beltway cowardice, but an all-encompassing terror campaign against them(and us.)  Barack Obama has pulled out the “Zombie Apocalypse” option from his playbook, and it makes this weekend’s malfunction of EBTs seem like a test, or a demonstration.  This President talks about blackmail, but that’s all he does. Now, he’s threatening to stop EBT deposits for 1 November, 2013, in order to scare Republicans into a deal. He’s threatening riots.  Now you know at least one more part of the hammer he’s using against Republicans.

Obama must go. That’s all there is to it.

 

Why Sarah Palin Is Right About Syria

Sunday, June 16th, 2013

Why Should We Go to Syria?

At Saturday’s session of the Faith and Freedom Coalition Conference in Washington DC, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin made some remarks, and among those that prompted the media to go berserk, she said of the potential of US involvement in that conflict that we “should let Allah sort it out.”  I actually saw one site on which she was referred to as an “isolationist” for this view, but such claims are laughable given her in-depth understanding of international trade and national security.  I saw another site suggesting that she didn’t know what she was talking about, or wasn’t qualified to comment.  Either way, it seemed more likely that the sites and authors in question had more trouble with who said it, or how it was said, because I believe the vast majority of Americans probably side with Governor Palin on this issue.  Apart from the fact that most Americans haven’t the patience for another middle-eastern  military engagement with indistinct goals and a muddled mission, there are some very practical reasons why she is right about all of this.  Mostly, it comes down to the fact that it’s a no-win situation for us, because while the horrors of what is going on in Syria is tragic in human terms, nothing the US can do will effect an end to the suffering, instead only adding to it with our own losses.

The reports this past week that the Assad government had crossed Obama’s “red line” on chemical weapons seem not to be as certain or as specific as our engagement should require.  There are reports that Sarin nerve gas had been used, and that more than one-hundred had been killed in this manner.  If true, it’s an egregious and brutal use of some very insidious weaponry, but it must also be said that if killing one-hundred or more civilians by this manner is a trigger for war, why did it take so long for us to engage Saddam Hussein? In the early years of the Clinton administration, Hussein used precisely this sort of weapon on his own civilians in Southern Iraq.

Advocates of intervention in Syria claim that what we should do is enact a “no fly zone” over that country.  They insist that this is as far as we need go, but there are a few problems with this thinking.  Russia has recently delivered more advanced surface-to-air missile capability to Syria, meaning that our aircraft would be subject to shoot-down in a much more threatening fashion.  Is all of this really worth losing our airmen and our aircraft?  I don’t see a rational justification.  If this were about defending the United States, our men and women will go to the ends of the Earth in pursuit of our defense, but I know few who think we ought to spend their lives frivolously or as a matter of charity, particularly in a place where we have no particular interests or friends.

The fact is that the so-called “rebels” are simply al-Qaeda or al-Qaeda-backed fighters much like those who took down Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. Nobody misses Gaddafi, but as the events at Benghazi last September demonstrate, the volatile nature of an environment only loosely-controlled by provisional governments but dominated on the ground by foreign fighters is not the sort of outcome for which Americans should be fighting.

Bashir Assad is a brutal dictator, but those “rebels” who face him are not much better.  We have seen this scenario play out before, and we’re witnessing its aftermath in Libya and Egypt.  The attack on our facilities at Benghazi was born of a similar situation, inasmuch as after we provided air cover for the “rebels” in that country, they immediately shifted gears and wanted us out as they began to build their Islamic Republic.  In this sense, we have no friends at all, by any definition, so that it’s impossible to understand why we would put Americans’ lives at risk to assist any of them.  In this context, it is easy to understand Governor Palin’s sentiment.  We don’t have any friends there, no real national security interests, and therefore, no justification for jumping in.

At the same time, the Russians are heavily invested in Syria and the Assad regime.  Iran is pledging forces to his defense.  Should we really consider placing our already over-stretched forces at risk for this?  Do we risk a wider war in the region if some Russian technical advisers are killed in a raid on a surface-to-air missile site?  More, if al-Qaeda-connected groups were to take over Syria as they have done in Libya, what will that mean for Israel that must live under the constant threat of Syria.  Which is worse for that island of liberty:  A neighbor that is predictably antagonistic and dangerous, or a volatile tempest filled with elements that feel no restraint born of relations to Russia or any other major power?  I’m not inclined to guess as to how the Israelis might feel about the matter, but I suspect that an al-Qaeda-driven neighborhood is not the most pleasant prospect the Israelis could imagine.

There is one final consideration in all of this, and it goes to the absolutely detestable leadership we’ve had over the last few years:  Americans can hardly trust a foreign policy that has squandered opportunities and lives in the manner that has been the hallmark of the Obama administration.  Do we wish to subsidize a foreign policy that is concocted by the likes of Samantha Power?  Do we wish to see the United States entangled in yet another quagmire in that region in which we have far too few friends given our more than two decades of exertions?  How much treasure has been spent, and how much of our blood has been spilled in the pursuit of policies with only vague platitudes about creating or supporting “democracy?”  In which pest-hole has that so far succeeded?

When critics of her remarks launch into their narrow-minded tirades against her alleged lack of foreign policy knowledge, or her supposed “isolationist” views, I can’t help but remember that these same critics would attack Governor Palin whatever her position had been.  Instead, her remarks serve as a flashpoint not for their true policy objections, but instead for their unabashed, unremitting hatred of Sarah Palin, the person.  When one carefully evaluates the facts on the ground in Syria, the hopelessness of the situation becomes evident, and the foolishness of any American engagement there becomes clear.  In Syria, we have no friends, but only enemies, who hate us as much or more than they hate one another.  Were we to intercede on behalf of the so-called “rebels,” were they to prevail, we would soon find ourselves under the gun to get out.  Most Americans are well beyond fatigued by this procedure, as it has been the trend in all our engagements throughout the Muslim world in the last two decades, so that unless the United States or its interests come under direct threat of some sort from actors in the region, our answer should be as Governor Palin wryly noted:  “Let Allah sort it out.”

 

Boston Marathon Bombers Explode Immigration Reform

Saturday, April 20th, 2013

Terror in Boston

In Boston, the bloody attack on the famous marathon has given residents a sample of what it must be to live in Israel on a daily basis. One dead, and one  now in custody, what the two twisted, radicalized brothers Tsarnaev ought to have taught a nation is an abject lesson in the complete failure of our immigration policy.  Details are still coming to light, but it is now apparent that the nineteen  year-old, Dzhokhar, hospitalized in custody, is a perfect example why the entire idea of “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” as currently being discussed in Washington is a complete and utter failure.  Dzhokhar Tsarnaev became a citizen of the United States on September 11th, 2012.  A mere seven months later, he conspired with his older brother Tamerlan to commit an act of terror against the nation that had adopted him with open arms. The elder bomber shouldn’t have been in this country, but thanks to an immigration system that does nothing to protect the American people from violent offenders, he remained in this country despite a conviction for domestic violence.

His mother spouted conspiracy theories, claiming her sons are innocent, but this comes from a woman who was herself convicted of stealing over  $1600.00 worth of merchandise just last year.  The two brothers and their sister along with their  mother have been on public assistance for much of their time in the US, and this is the thanks the American people have been offered in exchange for a foolish generosity that exceeds all rational boundaries.  The now-deceased elder brother, twenty-six year-old Tamerlan, was an engineering student, and with those skills, he apparently learned to build things like pressure-cooker bombs.  There is no doubt that  these two bear full responsibility for their crimes, but our government and its foolhardy policies are to blame for their entry and residence in the United States, using all they were given by a beneficent nation that too easily took them in.

What is wrong with a country that invites in people and permits them to re-establish their own sectarian cultures in our nation, cultures that are in direct ethical and religious conflict with our own?  What is wrong with a nation that invites in people who will become killers, raised, fed, and housed by our welfare state that is so greedy to extend its reach that it will take all comers at the expense of taxpayers, and this time, at the expense of at least four lives of people who would otherwise be with us today had these two villains not been permitted the opportunity to act as predators on the streets of Boston?  Schooled by you, fed by you, that vacation you couldn’t take as you were taxed to pay for their food or housing, or enjoying the fruits of scholarships  and other financial aid, these two monsters were the product of an immigration system that is broken but will not be repaired by the fraud being discussed by the “gang of eight.”  If there is any justice in the world, it will be that the moronic and morally bankrupt notions of “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” now under discussion in our Capital will have exploded with those bombs on the street in Boston.

The members of the “Gang-of-Eight” promise there will be no welfare eligibility, but we now know that members of this family of terrorists-in-training subsisted for some time on public assistance, according to an on-air report on Foxnews.  Why?  The mother was convicted of $1600 theft, and she remains in the US?  Why?  She should have been deported immediately after conviction.  ICE should have been waiting at the back of the courtroom to shove her onto a plane bound for her homeland, but that didn’t happen.  Why?  In 2009, Tamerlan Tsarnaev could have been deported after an arrest and conviction for domestic violence, but he was permitted to remain, according to JudicialWatch.  Why?  The immigration system didn’t fail them.  It failed us.  The welfare system didn’t fail them.  It failed us.  All of the stooges in Washington DC and around the country who will now assure us that immigration needs to be reformed  are correct, but they are lying to the American people when they offer their prescriptions.  We need to secure the border, we need to screen would-be immigrants more thoroughly, we need to monitor  them at least until they become US citizens, and we must forbid them from subsisting on the benevolence of a willing welfare state for at least that long. Violations of our laws should result in immediate and irrevocable deportation, particularly crimes of violence, fraud and theft. This shouldn’t apply only to those coming from largely Muslim countries or regions, but to immigrants from every country.

We cannot afford moral agnosticism when it comes to the integration of immigrants into our society.  The failure of such amoral policies are written forcefully on the pages of our newspapers and websites throughout the tragedies of the last dozen years.  We mustn’t tell people that their belief in Islam disqualifies them from immigration, but we must inform them that in the United States, in our civil society, the civil law – not the religious – must dominate the interactions among all people.  We have arrived at the sickening point at which we not only import terrorists, but also import people who establish their own enclaves and sub-cultures in which some will be subjected to those seeking to recruit terrorists or radicalize young people. We see this in the open, but we permit them to remain.  Do we not have enough evil-doers of our own without inviting in more, funding their existences, and bearing the burdens of their crimes against us?

It is not only Islamists.  From Mexico and points South, we import millions who subsist on our welfare, our health-care, and our generosity.  Our courts here in Texas are filled with the cases of robbery, thuggery, mayhem, and murder committed by illegal immigrants as well as resident aliens who import with them some of the worst facets of their cultures.  In some cases, illegals are turned loose for violations of law for which legal residents would be prosecuted, but that are much harder to contend with when you add in the bureaucracy of the Immigration service. Here in Texas, the number of people killed by drunk drivers who turn out to be in the country illegally is staggering, and all too often, they do not face deportation after their sentences, not because they “slip through the cracks,” but because our government refuses to do so. Let loose as a matter of policy after non-felony offenses, many escalate to more serious crimes.

Is it all Muslims?  Not nearly.  Is it all Mexicans?  Hardly.  Is it a troubling proportion?  Yes.  This is because under the leadership of four consecutive presidents, we have permitted the government to excise most notions of integration or assimilation from the process.  Our welfare systems invites the poor but also the malevolent to arrive in huddled masses on our shores.  I  have listened to the purveyors of “comprehensive immigration reform” peddling their wares to the American people, but there can be no doubt that while behind their marble columns, and oaken desks, they are immune from most of the consequences, we who fund this country are the first victims of their big ideas.  We mustn’t have a friendly and generous immigration system at the expense of the lives, liberties, and treasure of the American people.

As the President announced the capture of the Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, touting the goodness and resolve of the American people, I couldn’t help but wonder if our policies correlate with the Presidents flowery words.  It is this president, after all, who refuses to enforce our immigration laws.  It is this president who issued executive orders that will be found to have made it easier for the elder Tsarnaev brother to remain in this country despite warnings from a foreign government and a domestic violence conviction in this country.  It is this president whose administration now faces a lawsuit from ICE agents for being punished for doing their jobs by enforcing the immigration laws of this nation.

There was a time when the immigration policies of this country were aimed at making the country greater, but now our policy has become one that proclaims “come as you are and live like you wish, even at our expense.”  There will be those who will accuse me of being anti-immigrant, but being the grandson of immigrants, and married to an immigrant myself, I dismiss such foolish claims. Instead, I assert that America must remain a nation to which immigrants may come, but we must return to a policy that is a good deal more discerning and demanding when we decide who may come and who may remain.  The first evidence of one’s suitability to immigration must be a willingness to wait in line, abiding by the laws of our country, including particularly those regarding who may enter and under which conditions.

This sad incident had begun with the despicable act of terror by two young, radicalized men. These men had been here in the United States by virtue of our pity and our charity, and these among our virtues were turned against us.  This is only possible because we have permitted politicians to imagine that their personal feelings of beneficence  permit them the discretion to extend it endlessly at our expense, to all comers.  It’s not only this incident, but all of the lesser incidents of torment and murder that are enacted by people residing illegally and legally in the United States who ought not be permitted to stay, and who should have been ejected at the first instance of entanglement with our criminal judicial systems.  Hundreds of thousands of times each year, people permitted by the policies or intransigence of our government enact crimes at the expense of the American people, and the trail of dead and maimed is much longer than the media or politicians would have you know.

“Losers”

Perhaps we should adopt the standard laid forth by furious but ashamed Ruslan Tsarni, the uncle of the two men, interviewed in Maryland Friday, where he was asked by reporters what he thought brought about the behavior of his nephews:

“Being losers, hatred to those who were able to settle themselves — these are the only reasons I can imagine.”(emphasis added)

Tsarni, paternal uncle to the two bombers, seemed to be saying that these two were unable to settle themselves, a suggestion that they had not fully assimilated into the culture of America. Tsarni professed a love for his country, and explained that he teaches his own children to love the country, in effect, seeking to make of them Americans. He clearly regards those who won’t assimilate as “losers.”

This is ultimately the problem with our immigration system: It no longer screens out the losers, and worse, now promises them unearned rewards if they can get here somehow.  More, agencies do nothing whatever to monitor immigrants to see how they  are progressing toward assimilation.  The “Gang of Eight” Senators is going to have a harder job selling their indecent proposal on immigration, if only because this entire event highlights just how poorly the liberal ideas on immigration policy have worked.  It has created a wave of crime, a bloody trail of victims, and an absurd lack of judgment with respect to those who come to or seek to remain in our country.  A loose policy is not what America needs, and this incident, combined with more than two decades of tragedies borne by an irresponsible sense of benevolence on the part of politicians has created an environment in which this sort of thing may become the new normal.  These villains are responsible for their own acts, but our politicians are responsible for holding the door open to all the world without judgment.  They’ve let in far too many “losers,” because just like the 9/11 hijackers, these bombers were here legally.  As evidenced by the decline of our civilization, we have plenty enough “losers” of our own.  Thanks to the diligence of our law enforcement personnel, these two are off the streets, but sadly, due to an unjustly forgiving immigration policy, there will be more who will likely follow in their footsteps.

 

Covering Up the Cover-Up: Petraeus Sideshow

Wednesday, November 14th, 2012

The Main Event

I realize that the leftist media is happily pursuing former CIA Director and retired General David Petraeus, and I also understand that this is their way of giving Barack Obama cover.  This story is designed simply to cover up a cover-up.  You will remember that almost every media person asked has said that Petraeus had to go, because the affair left him subject to blackmail and coercion.  All those who said that are right.  The thing they missed is that such blackmail had already occurred, as we now learn that the Obama administration used the pending disclosure of the affair to force Petraeus to sing the administration’s song on Benghazi. The fact is that the Obama administration is proof-positive of the reason why we must have people of unimpeachable moral character in the highest offices of United States Federal Government.  On the opposite end of the blackmail of Petraeus sits a President who actually used blackmail or coercion to gain compliance from Petraeus to help conceal the truth about Benghazi.  This is the scandal, and this is the reason Barack Obama must go.  I say again: Barack Obama must go.

There can be no doubt that the character of a person who sits at the head of the CIA must be examined.  I don’t think there are very many people who would endorse the conduct of David Petraeus.  The problem is that as terrible as his actions had been, and as awful as the possibility of his vulnerability to blackmail may have been, the stunning fact remains that the man just re-elected to the presidency actually used that leverage against Petraeus.  Can we be blunt?  Anybody who uses his power as President to coerce or extort an appointed official in any respect does not belong in the office to which he had been elected.  Instead, he belongs in jail.

On Wednesday, Barack Obama held a press conference filled with softball questions during which he said that whomever might decide to “go after” UN Ambassador Rice would have a problem with him.  His threat was explicit.  I’ve got two words for our illustrious leader: Bugger off.  When Obama sent Rice out to all the Sunday shows to spread the administration’s garbage about an anti-Mohammed video as a cause of the attack on the Benghazi installation, she put herself squarely in the spotlight.  If Obama wants to absolve Rice of wrong-doing, there is a way he can do so:  He can publicly admit that he had given her those instructions, and that he is therefore directly responsible for misleading the American people.  If he’s not willing to do that, Rice is fair game.  When the Marxist thug finds the testicular fortitude to take responsibility for that, maybe we can then drop Ambassador Rice.

At the same time, we have the pending testimony of David Petraeus, but I would not expect too much dirt to be dumped by Petraeus.  You might wonder what could cause Petraeus to bite his tongue at this late date, no longer in the administration, but I will tell you why I now expect the Petraeus testimony to produce nothing of value: They used the affair to keep him quiet, but if he was willing to do that, what other untruths will he speak in testimony if the Justice Department is waving possible charges in his general direction?

Put another way, if Petraeus changes his story at this late date, that will mean an admission that his earlier testimony was false, particularly if his testimony was tainted due to administration coercion.  He’s damned if he tells the truth, because he will be subject to prosecution.  If he maintains his earlier lies, then the administration can let it go without prosecution.  Besides, given the clearances to which Petraeus has access, it is possible that charges may be filed related to the access that Ms. Broadwell may have gained by virtue of her relationship with Petraeus.  All of this means he’s likely to keep his lips stapled shut and claim the 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination. At this point, for him, it is much easier and safer to maintain a lie or say nothing than to tell the truth or make any disclosures.  He may be spitting mad and vengeful with respect to the Obama administration, but chances are that they have him over a barrel.  If there was any chance of him spilling the beans, he’d have wound up “suicided.”

Most media outlets have been distracted by the sex and sleaze aspects of this story, but that’s not the important part of this story except as the means by which to understand how Petraeus we being blackmailed.  The critical thing to expose is that Barack Obama and his administration concealed the whole truth from the American people in the run-up to the election.  They concocted a narrative that was demonstrably false about Youtube videos that they knew at the time was false.  Whether directing the cover-up, or as an adjunct to it, Obama had all the authority in the world necessary to prevent it.  Instead, they tried to bury the truth, both about the fact that it had been a planned terrorist attack, as well as the fact that they failed to take any sort of remedial actions once the attack had begun.

Four Americans were slaughtered, and to conceal their inaction, especially through the election, they used all the leverage they held over David Petraeus, and despite what some may think, through the prosecution powers implicit in the Department of Justice, they still hold him over a barrel.  We need more than some dog-and-pony show investigation.  This President misled the American people, and he should be considered to have suborned perjury if he instructed Petraeus to lie to Congress, which almost certainly occurred on September 13th.  The media is complicit, because they’ve helped to cover this mess for Obama, and they aren’t apt to tell us much because they’d be admitting their own dishonesty.  That shouldn’t stop us from demanding answers, because it’s our country.  Enough of the Petraeus sideshow, as it’s long past time we move on to the main event, in which Barack Obama is the rightful star of the show.

“It’s 3am”

Monday, November 5th, 2012

Killed By the Coward in the White House

Saturday, October 27th, 2012

Despicable

As more facts are revealed about the events in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11th, 2012, what is becoming increasingly obvious is that President Obama not only lied to the American people about the role of the now-infamous anti-Islam video, but also systematically covered-up the entire fiasco resulting in the deaths of Americans serving at the President’s direction in Libya.  The President and others in his administration are playing fast and loose with the facts, and sources now say that there were at least three requests for aid that were denied by the chain of command.  This is astonishing news, because what it directly implies is that the President’s statements about his first direction being to secure Americans was a bald-faced lie.  President Obama not only lied to the American people, but he and those acting at his direction abandoned Americans on the field of battle.  He flew off to Las Vegas, precisely to create an alibi.  The problem is, as President of the United States, the White House goes with you wherever you may be.  No, there will be no alibis this time, and this President must face the music, but if he is re-elected, he will not.  Any political black eye will come long after he begins his new term, if it materializes at all.  I can no longer refer to him as “President” Obama.  No American president has ever behaved so cravenly.  Re-elect him if you like, but he will be “the Coward” on the pages of this blog, for leaving Americans to be slaughtered, some who fought valiantly to save others, giving their lives for their countrymen.

One of the lies being pushed around is that he needed to “get to the bottom of this.”  That’s hogwash.  We now know that there were Predator drones in the air over the scene, at least one providing a live video feed of the situation on the ground.  More, we also know that the valiant Tyrone Woods – one of the Navy Seals killed in this action – maintained contact and was actually ordered to stand down in his efforts to save others before he ignored orders and ultimately gave his life in that pursuit.  His father, Charles Woods, has given several interviews, but on Friday night, he gave one to Sean Hannity, and during this interview, we learn a good deal about the character of Tyrone Woods as well as the  Marxist Coward.  You can play the audio of the phone interview below:

Alternative content


 

A number of the people in media are ignoring a central point about all of this, and I think it needs to be understood, because it demonstrates the absurdity of the Marxist Coward’s lies. There can be no way that Barack Obama was out of the loop.  There can be no way he ever believed this was the result of protests against a video.  That entire story was cooked up in the bowels of the Obama campaign.  You might ask how I know this with such certainty.

The reports of Friday morning that urgent requests for assistance were denied offers the first bit of evidence.  The damning bit of evidence came later in the day, when the CIA put out this statement:

“We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi.  Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.  In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night—and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades.”(emphasis added)

“No one at any level in the CIA.”  Notice it does not say “No one at any level.”  This qualification is the damning bit.  The CIA does not claim that requests for aids weren’t denied.  The statement merely claims nobody in the CIA denied them.  Once you realize this, it’s now a more important statement, because it doesn’t tell us who did deny such requests, but merely who did not. With that in mind, we must now ask: Who else would have the authority to deny a CIA request?  The State Department doesn’t have that authority, except insofar as the request might have been made of them, but it wasn’t.  They were asking for military support.  That means the Department of Defense.

Those of you who have spent any time around any government operation will know that a situation or request spanning different departments and agencies of this sort will always go all the way up the chain of command, before coming back down.  Unless there had been some sort of standing order to the DoD to provide support, there would have been, of necessity, a request up the chain through the CIA, landing on the desk of whom?  Ultimately, there is only one office that can then take such a request and issue orders to DoD for such support.  Only one.  And that office and its occupant were beating feet for Las Vegas on Air Force One.  Got it?

That’s right, a move like that can only happen with Presidential approval, either explicitly in advance, in the form of some blanket order, or as events unfold, in the certain terms and context of the moment.  Hillary Clinton could not deny such a request.  The Department of Defense couldn’t deny such a request.  Only the President of the United States, in this case, the Cowardly Marxist, could deny such a request, or refuse to act on it.  A President could ignore such a request until the event was over and the request mooted by the outcome, but that sort of request must pass through national command authority.

That’s right people.  You want a smoking gun?  You want proof that the cowardly Marxist-in-chief knew all along, and was hip-deep in this?  There it is.  The CIA says no one at any level in the CIA denied such requests. They did not say that there were no such requests, or if there were, what had been the ultimate disposition of such requests.  What you have here is a CIA statement intended to relieve its director of culpability.  Later, it will not be said that this had been a false statement.  No, the CIA is off the hook.  This statement shields the CIA so long as it’s a true statement, to the degree it says anything of use.  The value in this statement is what it leaves unsaid, and that is a whopper that lands in the lap of the lying Marxist coward who sporadically occupies the White House between fund-raising jaunts and Letterman appearances.

Ladies and gentlemen, the matter is clear, and the answer is simple: Either Barack Hussein Obama denied the request, or he shelved it until moot.  What you have in Obama is a professional liar, and his administration is staffed with people who exist to obfuscate, shade the truth, and outright lie when necessary to fulfill their political agenda.  Americans have died because of this rotten, miserable soul, and there’s a reason Tyrone Woods’ father sensed something akin to a dead fish in Obama’s handshake: Like all miserable cowards, he’s dead inside.  It is time for Barack Obama to go.  He has lost all valid claims to moral authority.  Our country can no longer afford him, and if he remains in office, we will never know the whole truth, and no justice will be had for Tyrone Woods, a young man who acted heroically in the face of his own chain of command’s cowardice.

 

Americans Died, Obama Lied

Tuesday, October 23rd, 2012

Would I Lie to You? Next Question...

On Tuesday evening, Greta Van Susteren reported the astonishing but predictable news: The Obama administration knew within hours or even minutes who had perpetrated the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, ultimately killing Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.  The cover story about an anti-Islamic video was merely a scapegoat of convenience that had absolutely nothing to do with the attack on our consulate, but the sickening fact is that President Obama’s administration, including the State Department, and high level national security officials were well aware of the truth even as they continued to try to sell its cover story to the American people.  The reason is simple:  The Benghazi attack was the first successful strike on American soil by organized radical Islamic supremacists since September 11th, 2001, on its 11th anniversary.  Fourteen days after this attack, Barack Obama was still telling the American people it was about a video, desperately hoping to disconnect the events from the obvious failures in his leadership and foreign policy.  Barack Obama has deceived the American people.  For seven hours, in full possession of the facts, as the attack raged and Americans were slaughtered, this President and his administration did nothing except to concoct a cover story.

Perhaps the most galling meme put forward by the Obama administration in the wake of this dismal failure was the attempt to accuse Mitt Romney of politicizing the event.  The facts speak for themselves: The Obama administration commenced the politicization of this attack by lying to the American people on the basis of politically motivated calculations about the impact the truth would have on the upcoming election.  Barack Obama and his administration clearly have no shame, but while they have sought to hide the truth, on Tuesday evening, emails were disclosed that should put an end to the obfuscation.  From FoxNews:

The emails obtained by Fox News were sent by the State Department to a variety of national security platforms, whose addresses have been redacted, including the White House Situation Room, the Pentagon, the FBI and the Director of National Intelligence.

Fox News was told that an estimated 300 to 400 national security figures received these emails in real time almost as the raid was playing out and concluding. People who received these emails work directly under the nation’s top national security, military and diplomatic officials, Fox News was told.

That Candy Crowley would give Obama cover on the cover-up during the second Presidential debate is bad enough, but to now discover that the whole administration was quite well aware of the source of the attack means that we not only have a President willing to lie to the American people, but that he has surrounded himself with a cadre of bureaucratic henchmen who share his contempt for Americans.  The Obama administration may be amateurish with respect to its handling of foreign policy, but they are first-rate professionals when it comes to lying to the nation.  The mainstream media continues to cover and hide the lengths to which this administration has gone in its disinformation campaign against the American people.

Joe Wilson was right when he yelled at Obama during a State of the Union address: “You lie!” Worse, however, President Obama isn’t a man who once told a lie and got away with it: He is a reprobate.  He is a liar by trade, and nothing he says may be trusted.  Cataloging the lies of his debate appearance on Monday night would take many pages, but suffice it to say that even some in the mainstream media are having a difficult time covering his tracks.

What readers need to know about Barack Obama is this: There is no lie he won’t tell, and no American whose life and memory he will not sacrifice to his political desires.  This President yammers about the politicization of a tragedy as a pre-emptive strike against the shocking truth that political calculations were and remain the motive for the cover-up of the events in Libya.  Obama hopes the American people will be fooled again, and that when he says he has “kept us safe,” they will forget the deadly attack on our consulate, and the Fort Hood shooting, among other acts of terrorism he refuses to acknowledge as such.  That’s all this really is, and all it’s intended to do.  His entire administration is convicted of a lie, and he’s betting the American people will be too.

Terrorism?  What terrorism?

 

The “Religion of Peace” on Global Rampage

Friday, September 14th, 2012

Building up to what?

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a serious issue, and for all of those who say it’s wrong to condemn a whole religion for the actions of a few, I may hear that argument but its weight is diminishing as the entire globe lights with the fires of violent Jihadi protests.  There’s no more disguising it:  The radical global Jihadi front is on the march, and it includes elements of the Muslim Brotherhood, but it also includes elements of Hamas, al Qaeda, and various other groups around the globe.  In London, our embassy is seeing increasingly violent protests.  In Berlin, the same thing is true.  Let me explain what is happening:  They are using the fraudulent claim of a Youtube video as the grounds for what they’re doing, but that’s not what those driving this have in mind.  They wish to drive the US out of the Middle East, and ultimately, out of Europe, and they’re gambling that weak-kneed Europeans will be glad to comply, since they have a long history of capitulating to the Islamists who have gained increasing influence in their countries due to liberal immigration policies and ridiculous welfare programs.

They have their toe-holds in Europe, and it is now their intention to begin to take it all over.  They’re not quite strong enough to do so, but what they have in mind is to create enough chaos in Europe and the US that we will withdraw entirely from the Middle East.  It’s an attempt to isolate Israel, but also the United States.

Now we have an evacuation at the University of Texas in Austin due to a caller claiming to be a member of al-Qaeda, and word has now arrived that the State University of North Dakota at Fargo is evacuating over similar bomb threats. Also, Valparaiso University is being evacuated for unspecified threats.

This is a day of rampage for the “Religion of Peace.”  This is at least partly the result of a foreign policy directed by an affirmative action Nobel Prize recipient.  America is under attack.  The West is under attack.  It is only a matter of time until Israel comes under ferocious attack.  What is President Obama doing about it?

Nothing.

Barack Obama isn’t merely a failed President.  He’s failed as an American.

 

New Mini-Movie Shows Obama’s Anti-Israeli Record

Sunday, March 4th, 2012

Friend of Israel?

This Youtube video was released in time for the AIPAC conference in Washington DC this week, by the Emergency Committee for Israel, and it highlights the despicable record Barack Obama has built in his dealings with the Israeli security issues, but also his befriending of radical anti-Israeli elements around the world.  It calls into question Obama’s sincerity on his campaign promises about the security of Israel, while pointing out that some of the President’s actions have been downright hostile.  It’s a bit lengthy, and it provides a bit of background for the narrative, but what viewers should understand is that Barack Obama and his administration have been systematically undermining Israel all along.  This sabotage of Israel clearly isn’t in the long-term interests of the United States, and it shouldn’t be ignored.

The mini-movie runs approximately thirty minutes:

I find the parade of Democrat politicians chastising Obama’s policy entertaining, if for no other reason than the remarks of Hillary Clinton last week, and what it reveals about the sincerity of their support for Israel. If nothing else, it certainly proves the point that the Obama administration isn’t playing straight with the American people, or with Israel. Barack Obama has been a disaster for US-Israeli relations, and for the prospects of peace and Israeli security.  The fact is that given another four years of his presidency, Israel will be among the biggest losers, second only to the American people.

What If Christians in America Reacted Like Muslims in Afghanistan?

Sunday, February 26th, 2012

One Thing Leads To Another

I can’t help but notice that the President and his friends in the leftist establishment press are offering a dangerous precedent for anybody who wants to notice it.  As Barack Obama apologizes to the Taliban, Afghans, and Muslims everywhere for the inadvertent burning of a few copies of the Qur’an, the reaction is even more strident and increasingly violent.  The more violent they become, the more Obama and his friends in the press grovel, to the extent that he’s now got the entire military chain of command making apologies and running around in panic that they have offended Islam.  Watching all of this, I had a sudden thought:  What would happen if American Christians reacted to the contraception mandate in precisely the same way?  Would Obama grovel before them too, or like his bowing all over the Middle East, is that reserved solely for the Muslim world?  To watch this president in action is to observe a slow-motion train-wreck, if you believe he’s incompetent, but I no longer hold that view.  No president could act so recklessly.  If Christians reacted in a more vociferous manner, would President Obama apologize and grovel for them too, or would he crack down on his own countrymen, as I suspect?

This display couldn’t be more disgusting, and yet, given the way Christians and others of faith(excepting Muslims) are treated by the current administration, maybe that’s the answer:  Americans of faith are simply too docile, and too willing to “turn the other cheek.”  Of course, as Americans of faith have long since discovered, when it comes to the Obama administration, and the mainstream media, turning the other cheek has begun to give the appearance of somebody watching a tennis match.  Christians particularly have taken a beating from this administration, and Obama’s willing accomplices in the media carry out shameless attacks on people of faith under the general auspices of “reporting the news.”

I realize Christians are not very likely to “go Taliban” as the Afghans have been doing this week, but the reaction of the Obama administration may offer a bit of a clue.  I’m not advocating violence, of course, but maybe it’s time to put together a “million Christian march” or some such thing to remind the administration Who is in charge.  Apparently, the administration is quite fearful of the mess now ongoing in Afghanistan, and at the rate things are going, I can see us evacuating via helicopter off the roof of our embassy there.  Not satisfied to turn the fight into Vietnam out in the field, the liberals are accomplishing the seemingly impossible: We’re going to wind up with video out of Afghanistan very much like we saw as the United States evacuated from Saigon, leaving people desperate to escape clamoring to be lifted out too. Leftists everywhere will celebrate.

Of course, the way this country is being led into the ground, Christians may not have to do much.  If the Occupiers have their way, they’ll create a similar scene at the White House, and Barack Obama will fly out in Marine One, leaving the likes of Biden and Carney to fend for themselves among the restless natives.  This is the state of our rudderless nation as Barack Obama takes one victory after the other and converts them into complete disasters.  His apologies have done nothing but to encourage the mobs of angry Afghans, and it’s a disturbing picture when you realize they are merely acting out on the basis of that which they believe.  Call it irrational if you want, and yes, they’re barbaric murderers who have killed Americans in their blood-lust, but consider this:  Barack Obama is begging their forgiveness for a “wrong” that has been shown to be an accidental insult, and not the act of malice.

What are we then to make of a president who acts with malice toward the people of faith in his own country? He insults Catholics, demeans Christians, and tells them their faith must be subservient to his government, while the government he leads and administers bows in surrender and supplication before the rioters in Afghanistan.  How is an American Christian or Jew to take this, realizing that he does the same at home, since we cannot say “Islamic Terrorism” with respect to Major Nidal Hasan, but instead call it “workplace violence?”  Is it not stunning to see an American president who evinces respect for foreign savages who practice a religion he does respect, while he ignores the consciences of Americans who practice a religion he apparently holds in contempt?

This is abominable, sickening behavior, not only by the murderous thugs in Afghanistan, but also by the irresponsible administration in Washington DC.  Where a decent President would have ignored the incident in his official capacity, knowing that to acknowledge it would give it more gravity and not less, and in a situation in which a responsible president would have loosed the dogs of war in their own defense, Barack Obama not only has harmed us, and especially the troops under his command, but he has ignored the chance to deliver a lesson to the Afghans who now rise up in open rebellion against us over a mistake.

Any decent respect for our country and its position in this world would have led him to treat this entire incident differently, but he has no respect, neither for the country nor for the office he occupies.  Just once, I would like to see him react in a similar fashion when Americans of faith were rightly offended, rather than working to offend them more thoroughly in the next instance.  Until Barack Obama leaves that office, our nation will suffer one disaster after the next, and all of his making, and as I wrote this past week, I no longer believe the line that it’s all due to incompetence.  He’s intentionally paying respect to those who have none for us, and he’s one of them in spirit, if not in open worship.  While he reaches out to offended Muslims the world over, he turns his backside to us, and the moon you’re being shown isn’t the crescent common to Islam.

 

Is Iran a “Rational Actor?”

Friday, February 24th, 2012

"Rational Actor?"

When you see that even scientists have become so irrational, you know you’re not dealing with an ordinary regime, or rational actors who can be counted upon to follow norms of behavior as we perceive them to be in the West.  The Israeli National News is reporting that the Iranian nuclear scientist who was assassinated in Tehran in January was very  much concerned with and focused on the annihilation of Israel, according to his widow.  Whether she was prompted into this statement by the Ahmedinejad government, or whether she volunteered the information on her own, this speaks to the plainly irrational desires of that regime. There are those who suggest that there’s no proof Iran is an irrational actor, but I think that flies in the face of more than thirty years of evidence to the contrary.

Iran remains the leading state sponsor of terrorism, and they continue to back operations by Hezbollah along with others throughout the Middle East.  More, their current dictator and his theocratic overseers are so-called “Twelvers” who believe in the 12th Imam and a theology that specifies the end of their “oppression.”  These are people who have beliefs more irrational than the worst cultists you’ve ever known in the West, and yet there are those who think we can somehow negotiate in good faith with them.  Worst of all, their leader, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, professes a devout belief in this theology, and says that the oppressors are the “Great Satan” (the US) and the “Lesser Satan” (Israel.)

For those who suggest we can deal with such thinking, I’d remind them that nobody took Hitler and his occult beliefs and practices seriously outside of Germany until it was much too late.  I wonder if these same critics would contend that Hitler had been a “rational actor.”   The Iranian dictator is a maniac, and to pretend he’s less dangerous than he is would be to subject this country to unnecessary risks and a threat of serious harm.  This guy is no more rational than David Koresh, but Koresh had a few rifles, and for that Janet Reno laid siege to his Mt. Carmel compound.  This mad-man is seeking nuclear weapons, and has already tried to carry out political assassinations in the US.  By what standard can anybody conclude he is rational?

Hillary Inconsistency: Need Syrian Consent for Troops – Why Different From Libya?

Tuesday, February 14th, 2012

Different Thug, Different Policy?

I must admit that I don’t quite understand this one yet, because while we entered the fray in Libya on the basis of the Samantha Power argument of a “Responsibility to Protect,” the idea that nations had a duty to protect a people from a tyrannical regime, this same theory doesn’t apparently apply in Syria.  Instead, after a meeting with the Turkish Foreign Minister, Hillary Clinton said in a joint press conference with Foreign Minister Ahment Davutoglu that there would be no troops sent to Syria without the consent of the Syrian government.  Why is one brutal thug’s regime exempt, while the other was not?  While leftist protesters marched under the banner of “no blood for oil” in successive wars initiated by Republican presidents, there’s no similar outrage now that it has become patently obvious that this is the only justification for the differential in policy: Syria has no oil. Libya has plenty.  It’s either that, or something more nefarious.

This is another example of the apparent contradictions in Obama’s foreign policy.  When the people of Iran were rising up, Obama said nothing, and did nothing.  In Syria, we’re getting some words from the State Department, but nothing of substance, and it seems there’s no intention on the part of this administration to have a consistent policy.  We surely didn’t wait for Gaddafi’s consent before bombing in Libya.  We were trying to bomb him!  Meanwhile, Assad is every bit as monstrous as Gaddafi, and perhaps worse, yet there we are wearing kid gloves.  This doesn’t make any sense at all unless one begins to account for the differences between the two countries, or leaders.

Is there some reason the Obama administration favors Syria’s Assad?  If one applies the principles of the idea called “Responsibility to Protect(R2P,) one must wonder as thousands of civilians in Syria have been murdered in the streets over the last few months.  If Gaddafi was a rabid dog who needed to be removed for the safety of his country’s people, why not Assad?  Why is he exempt from a similar fate?

Don’t misunderstand: I am not advocating an attack by NATO on Syria, but I find it curious that the same people who less than one year ago could not wait to pound Gaddafi into submission before he was slaughtered at the hands of a mob(as he deserved) are now reluctant about treating Bashar al-Assad in similar fashion.  This discontinuity in policy means something, just as the reluctance to criticize Ahmedinejad in Iran meant something, but it’s not yet clear what the meaning is.  Cynical folk would point to the Libyan oil, but even if that is a factor, I don’t think it’s the only one.  Something else must account for this differential in policy.  Could it be that Assad has something else Obama wants?  Could it be related to the proximity of Syria to Israel?

Time will tell, but when one sees such distinct and different actions by lefties in similar circumstances, one knows there’s something more to the story.  Leftists are simply too stuck in their ideological ruts to act this way without ulterior motives.

Obama Will Hold Off On 1967 Borders Until Post-Election

Saturday, January 14th, 2012

 

Tougher For Israel in 2013?

WND is reporting that Palestinean Authority officials who wished for their identities to be withheld told the online publication that the Obama administration has told the Palestinean Authority to be patient through the elections, and to not make trouble until Obama is re-elected.  That would make perfect sense given the Obama  administration’s abysmal record in supporting Israel, and its ceaseless devotion to restoring the 1967 borders that would leave Israel indefensible.  It’s no secret that this administration has given support to the so-called “Arab Spring” in neighboring Egypt, and continues to down-play the Islamists’ takeover of that nation, while attacks upon Israel continue from all directions.  WND’s Aaron Klein quotes the source as saying:

“We were asked by the (U.S.) administration not to make special demands or scandals during the elections,” said the official.

“After elections, the negotiations will be renewed on basis of the Clinton plan and Obama’s speech in Cairo of the 1967 borders,” the official said.

This is not surprising, after Obama took such a strong public relations hit in his press conference with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last year, and I suspect in a second term, the fangs would come out from behind the polite smiles, and the Obama administration will begin to pressure Israel very strongly.  This remains one more reason that Barack Obama must be defeated in 2012.  Left to carry out his foreign policy agenda, Israel would soon lay in ruins, or be overrun.

 

Victoria Jackson Claims Islamic Infiltration of US Under Way

Wednesday, December 28th, 2011

She's Back!

There are those who will argue it’s hard to take Victoria Jackson seriously after her career as a comic on Saturday Night Live.  She’s been taking on more serious subjects for some time now, writing columns for WND, and also taking on the Occupy Wall Street crowd.  In this case, she claims that the Muslim Brotherhood is infiltrating the US federal government, and she’s goes to some lengths to make her case. It’s a serious charge, and she goes further, ultimately suggesting that President Obama is tied to all of this.  While it’s hard to dispute that Obama’s policies have certainly been favorable to the Muslim Brotherhood, her other claims are somewhat more difficult for most Americans to accept.

In the video below, she’s on PolitiChicks.tv, and she discusses the details of a briefing she attended.

It’s hard to deny that the mainstream media has been doing its best to cover up incidents involving Muslims.  The ridiculous classification by DoD of the Fort Hood shooting as an act of “workplace violence” comes to mind, and Tuesday’s disclosure about the Christmas day shooting in Grapevine, TX are only two examples of this sort of reporting.  With the Obama administration’s actions on the Fort Hood shooting, and its Department of Homeland Security head referring to acts of terrorism as “man-caused disasters,” it’s not hard to understand why some Americans are beginning to ask questions of their government and a media that seems institutionally devoted to covering for radical Muslim terrorists.  At the same time, we have the DoD allowing the wearing of the hijab by JROTC cadets, leading some to question what is going on behind the scenes.  Still, some will have difficulty accepting at face value what Jackson alleges because of her comedic past, but I think such an out-of-hand dismissal is a mistake.  In any event, it’s certain to be a matter of continuing controversy, and you can count on the media to sweep it all under the rug.

Will National Defense Authorization Lead to Indefinite Imprisonment of Americans?

Monday, November 28th, 2011

Telling the Truth About NDAA?

There’s a story circulating on the Internet that was posted last Wednesday at ACLU.org by Chris Anders, in which it was put forth that the latest NDAA includes provisions that would allegedly make “the battlefield” your back yard, and make American Citizens subject to indefinite imprisonment and subject to military authorities.  Of course, with the state of things in this country, it’s not entirely out of character for the folks in Washington DC to view Americans as an enemy, but I also know that the ACLU has its own axes to grind, and part of the trouble with Mr. Anders’ article is that it contains references but no links to the specific provisions of law he says are problematic.  Worse, in publishing the article, rather than provide links to the actual legislative language, or links to the proposed [Udall]amendment Mr. Anders seems to be advocating, the links for the Amendment take readers to an activism page aiming to lobby Congress.

This is by itself a dishonest tactic, and I have some serious concerns with somebody at the ACLU using the occasion of this bill to promote fear-mongering notions about what this bill actually provides.   Apparently, I’m not the only one who has noticed that the ACLU’s Chris Anders seems to be jumping the shark with his claims.  The first thing that made me suspicious about the article is that Anders never quotes the actual legislative language in question.  Why not let readers see the text and decide for themselves?  Instead, what you get from Mr. Anders is a string of claims about the effects of the law, rather than any specific legal language to support his assertions.  For instance, Anders writes:

“The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world.”

Notice that Anders includes a link on the words “the power” but rather than taking you to the text of the bill, or some description of “the power,” instead, the link directs you to an advocacy page where you can fill out a form and petition on behalf of the Udall Amendment.   There are eleven hyperlinks in the body of the article, and of these eleven, nine take you to this same destination.  In fact, rather than pointing you to the specific language of the Udall Amendment, the words “Udall Amendment” are linked three times to the ACLU petition page.  That’s simply dishonest.  Readers have an expectation that when they see a word or name that includes a hyperlink, it will take them to some source or related information relevant to the linked text.  Anders certainly didn’t seem to want you to see the actual Udall Amendment, which now leads me to wonder why.  Naturally, I went out and found the Udall Amendment,  and have linked it as Anders should have done.

The real problem with Anders’ article is that it does a lot of huffing and puffing, and in breathless terms describes provisions in a bill that by his characterization will lead to American citizens being arrested by US military forces in the back yards and leading to indefinite incarceration without charges, bail, or due process of law.  That would be a terrible and astonishing thing for the Congress to do under any circumstance, and I would loudly oppose it if that were the case here.  In point of fact, I’d be calling for Americans to join me in opposition, but that’s not what I’m finding.  Instead, what I’m finding actually conflicts with Anders’ characterization, and suggest dishonesty on his part.  Again, rather than try to characterize the provisions of Senate Bill 1867, I went out and found it for you so that you can make your own decisions based on its actual text.  The allegedly tyrannical provisions are sections 1031 and 1032.

The text of these provisions is as follows:

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

    (a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
    (b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
      (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
      (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
    (c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
      (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
      (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).
      (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
      (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
    (d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
    (e) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

    (a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-
      (1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.
      (2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined–
        (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
        (B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.
      (3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.
      (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.
    (b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
      (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
      (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
    (c) Implementation Procedures-
      (1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.
      (2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:
        (A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.
        (B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.
        (C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session.
        (D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.
        (E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.
      (d) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.

A fair reading of these sections highlights a couple of things to which we should pay close attention in examination of Mr. Anders’ claims about the bill.  First, the language included seems to specifically exempt US Citizens and lawful Resident Aliens from application of this provision.  Second, contrary to his claims in his introductory paragraph, it is hard to see how this bill would directly or even indirectly violate the constitutional civil liberties of American citizens and resident aliens here in the United States.  Mr. Anders claimed:

“The Senate will be voting on a bill that will direct American military resources not at an enemy shooting at our military in a war zone, but at American citizens and other civilians far from any battlefield — even people in the United States itself.”

I think this is disingenuous at best, and outright dishonest and inflammatory at worst.  He’s clearly trying to incite a fearful response based on suppositions I don’t think a fair reading of these provisions explicitly or implicitly would enact.  Of course, I knew that this might well be the case when I saw that PrisonPlanet.com was covering this story, because that site is largely authored by real conspiracy kooks.  Sure, they find some interesting material, but as in this case, I think their willingness to stretch the meaning and clear intent of things leads to a sort of self-destructive, self-defeating exaggeration and an atmosphere of bombastic claims most of which turn out to be overblown or entirely bogus.  Frankly, once Alex Jones is involved, a story loses much of the credibility to which we might otherwise attach, because Jones has a long history of turning loosely connected events and circumstances together in some of the most convoluted conspiratorial garbage on the Internet.  To each his own, but really, once this loon went down the whole “controlled demolition” rabbit-hole with the so-called “9/11 Truthers,” that was the end of his credibility, and with him, the credibility of anything posted on his sites.

The Senate’s bill may have some problems, but Anders’ characterization is dubious at best.  I think it’s clear that he and the ACLU are trying to create a lot of smoke where there is no fire, and I think the Udall Amendment is intended to place mandates on executive branch actions that may or may not be in the best interests of the United States, but could be understood to hamper this or any future President in acting as the Commander in Chief.  Whether the Udall Amendment is worthwhile is itself a matter of some controversy, but what is clear to me is that the ACLU is misusing this article to drum up a political issue without providing any substantive arguments.  I’ve yet to see how any of Anders’ claims are substantiated in the text of sections 1031 or 1032, as posted above, and these provisions certainly don’t match the claims.  If this is the best case the ACLU can make against these provisions, it’s time to admit that the ACLU has other motives with Anders’ article.  The method of presentation, the lack of citations, and the disingenuous appraisal suggests strongly that the ACLU is grasping at straws.

As much as anybody, I don’t trust our government, particularly where the liberties of the American people are concerned, but this story seems designed to mislead the American people, or to incite fear among them.  This could be a serious issue, but the version of the bill now posted indicates none of the dangers that Anders implies.  It’s dangerous to lead the American people astray, and in this case, I think it’s clear that Anders is doing just that.

Anti-Shariah Conference Relocated Due to Threats of Violence

Saturday, November 12th, 2011

Not If I Can Help It!

There’s something deeply disturbing about the fact that Christians who are concerned about the spread of Shariah into the United States cannot speak openly without threats of violence.  WND is reporting that Cornerstone Church of Madison, TN, is was forced to find another venue for its Preserving Freedom Conference.  It had been scheduled to take place at the Hutton Hotel in Nashville, but the Hotel management decided to cancel their contract due to threats and intimidation. Why Eric Holder isn’t investigating this, rather than sending guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels?  If Americans can’t discuss these issues without threats of violence, all the clap-trap about how “we’re not at war with Islam” is just empty rhetoric.  If Americans can be threatened and intimidated in this way, the Islamists are already winning.

It astonishing to me that in the first instance, a hotel would cower like this.  What isn’t clear is whether the Hutton Hotel’s management forwarded threatening and intimidating emails and letters to authorities, or otherwise filed a report with police.  The speakers scheduled for the event included Pamela Geller, Jay Sekulow, and Geert Wilders, among many others.  Stifling the free speech of Christian Americans is apparently fine, but you’d better not say the first critical word about Islam, Shariah, or the widespread notion in the Muslim world that America must be destroyed.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are under attack on all fronts.  While the Islamists attempt to undermine American culture and law, the left is doing the same.  The Islamists do it from within their religious institutions, while the leftists do it under the auspices of government and popular media.  Nobody will be immune to the ultimate result of this course we’re on, and it’s senseless to pretend that we can take some sort of “wait and see” approach.

As Geert Wilders noted:

“Do not allow Islam to gain a foothold here,” Wilders said. “Islam is dangerous. Islam wants to establish a state on earth, ruled by Islamic Shariah law. Islam aims for the submission, whether by persuasion, intimidation or violence, of all non-Muslims, including Christians.”

If we cave in to threats and intimidation, they have already established a foothold.  This will not stop until we confront it openly.  Many like to minimize the threat posed by the spread of Islamic culture in America, with Shariah law being imported and used to determine cases in American courts.  We’ve already seen how ths has worked in Europe, particularly France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, but if this is permitted to take root here, we will face a spreading misery worse even than our current political leadership inflicts upon us at present.

Americans of any description or any faith should be free to speak their minds without fear of violence.  That our federal government now essentially turns a blind eye to this growing threat should tell you something about the mindset of our current administration.  Reversing this course is the purpose for which we must nominate and elect a real conservative, and not some noodle-spine technocrat.  At this time in American history, there really is no room for that sort of “moderation.”  The only compromise between life and death is a slow death.  We mustn’t permit this to be our country’s fate.

Update: Newt Gingrich Calls for Ban on Shariah in US

 

Al-Qaeda Flag Flies Over Libya

Tuesday, November 1st, 2011

Over Libya

As I reported over the weekend on what was published in a story on The National Patriot by Craig Andersen, there was an al-Qaeda flag hoisted into the air over the courthouse in Benghazi, where Libya’s revolution – its contribution to so-called “Arab Spring” – was launched.  Now, the Daily Mail Online has picked up the story, complete with more photographs, but none of this was was unexpected.  We have known since early this year that al-Qaeda was present in Libya, and allied with the revolution.  With the disappearance of many shoulder-fired air-to-air missiles from Libyan depots, this raised more warning flags as it became clear that we were again siding with people who will ultimately oppose us.  It has prompted the question about Obama’s incompetence or complicity in aiding our enemies.

We shouldn’t be surprised to now discover the flag of al-Qaeda flying over Libya as that “liberated” nation slides under the control of Sharia, trading one tyrant for another form of despotism.  This has been the trouble with the entire “Arab Spring” all along:  It’s not going to improve conditions for anyone in the region except terrorists and Islamists.   This has been the general trend of our foreign policy under Barack Obama, and it seems that his Middle-eastern apology tour that started with his speech in Cairo in 2009 is now culminating in a foreign policy disaster the ultimate consequences of which may not be known for some time.

This is why a man of Obama’s mysterious past should never be permitted to occupy the White House.  His ascension from back-bencher in the state Senate of Illinois to the US Senate to the presidency is a study in meteoric rises, considering this man was a professional rabble-rouser just a few years ago.  His foreign policy with respect to the Islamic world has been comprised largely of surrender, despite his go-ahead of the killing of bin Laden, and what we now know is that he seems to have an affinity for the Islamic world that is almost unseemly in this time of war against so many Islamic nations where terrorism has prevailed.  To see the al-Qaeda flag flying over any part of Libya merely punctuates his incapacity for dealing honestly with the problems of the Muslim world.

If it were only Obama, one could dismiss all of this, but the State Department, headed by another Soros flunky, Hillary Clinton, was part of this mess too.  The whole US Department of State has taken on the appearance of a political operation that is trying to walk a fine line between the geopolitical objectives of George Soros, and the expediencies of US domestic politics.  To most Americans, this is a frightening situation, and with good reason:  We have a country treading economic water, while abroad, our enemies are gaining strength and being propped up by our own foreign policy, and at our considerable expense.  When you permit thousands of shoulder-fire missiles to get into the hands of terrorists, you must be called to account.  The Obama administration is conducting our foreign policy as if it were itself a foreign agent, and the dangers it poses are going to manifest eventually.  It’s time we prepare ourselves for those coming disasters.

Guess Who’s Flag is Flying in Libya?

Saturday, October 29th, 2011

They're Celebrating - Should You?

I’d urge you to click over to The National Patriot and read this story by Craig Andersen.  As was discussed here on this site about the potential blow-back in the wake of Gaddafi’s ouster and death, it’s now becoming clear that it’s going to be ugly.  Andersen has put together many of the same facts you’ve read here, but he’s added another dimension: With his article is a picture of a flag waving over the courthouse that serves as the headquarters for the rebels who now control Libya.  I take no satisfaction in having been right about this, but it is another sign that Barack Obama is indeed helping to build a global caliphate.  Was it by sheer incompetence or by design and intention? Read Andersen’s article, and judge for yourself.

US Embassy in Sarajevo Attacked by Gunman

Friday, October 28th, 2011

Islamist Gunman Toting AK-47 in Bosnian Capital

Details are sketchy at this time, but BusinessInsider is reporting that the US Embassy in Sarajevo, Bosnia, has come under attack by a lone gunman. BBC is reporting that the gunman was an Islamist. According to BBC:

“The person who fired an automatic weapon was wounded and arrested during the police operation,” police spokesman Irfan Nefic told BHT television.

Business Insider’s report includes video.  The shooter’s name is Mevlid Jasarevic according to Yahoo News, although there are no details about any other injuries at this time.  Drudge is carrying all the stories as they become available.

Gaddafi Dead, But What Will Be The Blowback?

Friday, October 21st, 2011

He Will Not Be Missed - But His Missiles May

I was stationed in Germany at the time of the Pan Am 103 downing over Lockerbie, Scotland.  When my own family flew back to the US a couple weeks ahead of me just a year later, it was on the flight that had replaced it.  It could just as well have been my family on that plane.  I am satisfied that the thug is gone, and my only sorrow in the matter is that it has taken so long to rid the world of him, but with the Obama having made a mess of Libya, what will we say when the blow-back arrives?  For those of you who haven’t noticed, there’s something seriously wrong with a foreign policy that precipitates a coup d’etats in another country without considering first what would happen to weapons of value to terrorists when a number of the ostensible rebels have been linked to al-Qaeda.

I want you to consider with our porous southern border what would happen if these terrorists were able to smuggle a dozen of these missiles into the US.  Imagine them smuggling them into position around our airports and knocking down airliners for sport and terror.  Imagine them taking up position in Israel to attack their airliners.  Imagine any of these scenarios, and realize that this one failure on the part of the Obama administration could lead to the premature deaths of thousands of Americans, or Israelis, or frankly anybody else, and you begin to understand that while it may be good for the world that Gaddafi is gone, and none of us will shed a tear over his final exit, the absurdity and irresponsibility of this operation cannot be over-estimated in its potential costs in lives and the security of the American people, and indeed, peace-loving people everywhere.

While we can all be thankful that this thug has been eliminated from the face of the Earth, we should nevertheless worry what will now happen as a result of the Obama administration’s bungling.  Remember, the Obama crowd helped facilitate this entire coup d’etats on the basis of Samantha Power’s theory of Right To Protect(R2P.)  More, Obama is carrying out something much more important on behalf of the Muslim brotherhood, and indeed all the most militant Islamists in the region:  He is getting rid of the “un-pure” thugs like Gaddafi and Mubarak, and even bin Laden.  The most radical Islamists never liked any of these militaristic dictators either, as they view them as oppressors of Muslims who are operating from a secular basis.  They were all happy to see Saddam go, for instance, and they’ll be happy to get rid of the House of Saud in the Kingdom of Arabia, just as they will ultimately be happy to rid themselves of the Emirs  elsewhere on the Arabian Peninsula, or the King in Jordan.

None of these are/were religious leaders or strict adherents of Islam although all of them talked it up.  They are using US military might(the vast part of NATO) to clean out the dictators in advance of the rebirth of their caliphate.  This calls into question all of Obama’s motives, but more importantly, it leaves open the very serious question about the thinking that went into our assistance in precipitating the Libyan coup d’etats in the first place.  When those shoulder-fired missiles begin to show up in concert with the downing of airliners, they will probably tell us it hadn’t been due to missiles, despite thousands of witnesses to the contrary.  They’ll blame it on faulty wiring in a fuel tank or some such nonsense.  I think we’ve been here before.

Ladies and gentlemen, as I’ve already said, we can be happy Gaddafi is gone.  What we should worry about is the way in which this entire operation has been handled, and the fact that we now have no idea where dangerous weapons have gone in the midst of all the turmoil.  You can bet they went somewhere, and you can imagine the kinds of people who would want such weapons, and for what they might use them.  As Barack Obama continues his campaign of making the Islamic world safe for the rebirth of a grand Caliphate, we are right to ask the questions as to his motives, but also with respect to his gross negligence in not seeing to it that these weapons didn’t fall into the wrong hands.  Or was it negligence at all?  One can only wonder.

UPDATED: Terror Plot Uncovered In Texas?

Wednesday, October 19th, 2011

Bexar County Courthouse, San Antonio, TX

Five men were apprehended early this morning in the Bexar County Courthouse in downtown San Antonio.  The five men were described as being French-Moroccan Muslims, here in the US on visas having traveled to the US from London.  Law enforcement officials who asked not to be identified told radio station 1200 WOAI “They got travel documents, parking passes, they have been all over the country.”  Apparently, the men arrived at the courthouse in a van found parked in front of the building, and it contained photographs of infrastructure, shopping malls, water systems, courthouses, and other public buildings from around the nation. It’s clear that the men were on some sort of nationwide reconnaissance operation.

This certainly looks like some sort of intelligence-gathering operation for future attacks.  Officials immediately cordoned off the entire scene around the courthouse, suspecting there could be explosives or other dangerous materials. No explosive were found, and the streets were reopened.  The men were described as being in their early twenties, and the men told one law enforcement official that the men told him they climbed to the fourth floor of the courthouse (between 1am and 2am) “to get a better view of the city.”

“All that, coupled with the fact why they can’t explain why they are in the building at 1:22 in the morning raises questions,” the law enforcement officer said.

Ladies and gentlemen, while all our attention is on the Occu-pests, their buddies in the Islamist movement are running rampant.  To top all of this off, an airliner was forced to land in Amarillo, TX because a man aboard a Southwest Airlines flight from Los Angeles to Kansas City began shouting “You’re all going to die. Allahu Akbar – you are all going to hell!” The man, a US citizen, was taken into custody by police who met the plane at the terminal. One official on the scene characterized the man as having “lost control of himself,” and dismissed it as unrelated to terrorism.

What?  Ladies and gentlemen, if a muslim male aboard an airliner begins screaming all of those things in the bathroom at the rear of the plane, causing the plane to make an emergency landing, it is an act of terrorism.  I can guarantee you that every other person aboard that airliner was terrorized by his behavior.  This is another example of political correctness gone mad, as what is clearly a serious incident is being related to the American people as merely a routine nuisance.

We had better wake up.  We’re being set up, and the thugs have our number.  They create distractions, hide their operations behind the distractions caused by others, and all the while, this is going on behind the scenes.  We may be witnessing the wind-up to a major attack on the US, and we’re messing around with a bunch of ne’er-do-wells who are creating distractions and drawing law enforcement resources away from incidents like the reconnaissance mission in San Antonio.

Update: Was This Arson Case an Act of Terrorism?