Obama doesn't see it
|Archived chronologically, in order of discovery
-- first in, first out --
it's early in the year -- most of the stuff is at the "2009" button --
in the left column . . .
|It's The Enemy, Stupid
|Scott at PowerLine blog
remarks at last night's victory celebration reiterated one of the
winning themes of his campaign in a memorable fashion: "And let me
say this, with respect to those who wish to harm us, I believe that our
Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation -- they do not grant
rights and privileges to enemies in wartime. In dealing with
terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not
lawyers to defend them."
Obama's national security
policy -- his treatment of enemy combatants as American citizens
is indefensible. The case of Umar Abdulmutallab is a powerful
example. The Obama administration has in fact put forth no
principled defense of its endowment of enemy combatants such as
Abdulmutallab with the rights of American citizens. Obama's
irrationality on this point is obvious and devastating. Andrew
elaborates in, "It's the enemy, stupid."
|Wake Up And Smell The War
|The New York Daily News believes the evidence is mounting that Obama
is following not merely an erroneous anti-terrorism strategy, but one
that is increasingly incoherent and incompetent. Two recent
developments highlight his failure:
First, senior administration
intelligence and homeland security officials testified to Congress that
they were not aware in advance that the Christmas Day terrorist, Umar
Farouk Abdulmutallab, would be read Miranda rights, arrested and charged
with crimes. Stunningly, it appears that these decisions were
essentially made wholly inside the Justice Department.
the administration has conceded that some 50 terrorists held at
Guantanamo Bay could neither be safely released nor tried and would
therefore be held indefinitely. This flatly contradicts repeated
Obama promises to close Gitmo. It also undercuts the rationale for
Obama's planned civilian trials for other terrorists and previous
decisions -- including some by the Bush administration -- to release far
too many who simply reverted to terrorism.
Obama has strained
mightily to move away from former President George W. Bush's "global war
on terror," changing many of its underlying policies and even sidelining
the phrase "war on terror." That Obama has not fully succeeded in
reversing Bush's policies is not for lack of trying, but only because
global realities have made it impossible for even someone so determined
to succeed in just one year.
However, make no mistake: Obama has
not given up. He remains determined to revolutionize America's
conceptual basis for dealing with terrorism. His approach is a
throwback to the pre-9/11 paradigm of treating terrorism as a problem to
be handled through conventional law enforcement channels. That
means full constitutional rights, including Fourth and Fifth Amendment
protections and evidence restrictions, public jury trials and more.
here . . .
|Obama Earns An "F"' On Stopping WMD Attacks
|David A. Patten is
reporting that the national weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
commission established by Congress has given the Obama administration an
"F" for failing to protect America from nuclear, chemical, and
"Nearly a decade after 9/11, one year after
our original report, and one month after the Christmas Day bombing
attempt, the United States is failing to address several urgent threats,
especially bioterrorism," stated former Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla.,
chairman of the bipartisan Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of
Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism.
The report charges
the administration "is simply not paying consistent and urgent attention
to the means of responding quickly and effectively so that [WMD attacks]
no longer constitute a threat of mass destruction."
the Commission concluded there still exists "no national plan to
coordinate federal, state, and local efforts following a bioterror
attack, and the United States lacks the technical and operational
capabilities required for an adequate response."
An outgrowth of
the 9/11 Commission report, the WMD Commission is charged with
evaluating U.S. defenses against WMD attacks. The report issued
Tuesday examines 17 areas deemed vital to defending against WMD.
The Commission gave the administration an F for not improving the
nation's ability to respond rapidly to a biological attack inflicting
mass casualties, and an F for poor implementation of the education and
training programs needed to train national-security experts.
also awarded Congress an F for poor oversight.
|Obama Won't Connect Terror Dots
|The Washington Times
says the state of the Caliphate is better than it should be.
When a man is apprehended with a cache of weapons, body armor, a map of
a military installation and jihadist personal effects, the natural
response of most Americans is to assume the situation is
terrorist-related. The Obama administration says otherwise.
Lloyd R. Woodson was arrested Jan. 25 in rural New Jersey. He had
been observed behaving strangely, wearing military-style fatigues and a
bulletproof vest. He had a weapon modified to fire .50-caliber
rounds from beneath his jacket. He had a hotel room full of
weapons and ammunition. Despite all these warning signs, the
immediate response from the government was that this was "not a
Bureaucratic lack of concern raises a critical
question: If this is not the behavior of a terrorist, what is?
It's not clear what Obama thinks terrorism is, if it thinks it exists at
all. The administration doggedly maintains that political,
especially jihadist, violence
by individuals with no international linkage is not terrorism.
This definition might come as a surprise to the Unabomber, who for years
was the most sought-after terrorist in America.
knee-jerk response that the Christmas Day bombing plot was not
terror-related was probably one of the factors that led
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to be
Mirandized quickly and treated as a criminal suspect. It shouldn't
matter that this was a domestic incident; he is a jihadist warrior, and
the aircraft was his battlefield.
The same was the case with
Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, charged
with killing 14 persons and wounding 31 in the Fort Hood massacre.
America was assured that Maj. Hasan had no foreign terrorist links, and
he was not charged with committing an act of terrorism. The Obama
administration's report on the shooting, released three weeks ago,
avoids mentioning radical Islam as a motivating factor in his rampage.
However, both Maj. Hasan and Mr. Abdulmutallab had relationships with
Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is a leading member of al
Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula, and Abdulmutallab was trained by al
Woodson also may have links to Islamic radicals.
A report by the Northeast Intelligence Network reveals that, according
to a member of New Jersey law enforcement, Woodson's personal effects
"not only associate him with 'radical Islam,' but also with a 'militant
Islamic group.'" But as the two cases mentioned above indicate,
even this would not qualify him as a terrorist under the Obama
administration's narrow definition.
In his State of the Union
address, Obama bragged that in 2009, "hundreds of al Qaeda's fighters
and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or
killed -- far more than in 2008." He claims this is a metric of
progress. However, if Taliban leader Mullah Omar gave a State of
the Caliphate address, he could make the same claim. More
Coalition forces are being killed in Afghanistan, and Taliban attacks
are increasing in size, scope and frequency.
that Osama bin Laden's audiotape released last week signals the
potential for future attacks. An unusually high number of people
on no-fly lists are trying to board aircraft. Increasing
casualties and activity on both sides are not metrics of progress; they
are signs that the war is heating up.
According to the Pew
Research Center, terrorism ranks slightly below jobs and the economy as
a top public priority. Americans know there is a problem.
Official statements claiming that incidents are not terror-related will
not change the fact that they are. Connect the dots, Mr. Obama.
The war on terrorism is still on, and it's getting hotter.
|Obama Buys Prison
|Lynn Sweet is reporting that Obama budget includes $237 million to
buy an Illinois prison for Guantanamo detainees.
a $3.8-trillion fiscal 2011 federal budget that includes $237 million
for the purchase and upgrading of a prison in Illinois to house
detainees now at the Guantanamo Bay military prison in Cuba.
Obama sends his spending blueprint to Congress, with the money to buy
the nearly vacant Thomson Correctional Center in northwest Illinois, 150
miles west of Chicago, in the Department of Justice funding request.
The State of Illinois and the federal government are currently
negotiating over the purchase price of Thomson.
here . . .
|The Obama Democrats Have Outdone Themselves
|Andy McCarthy says that while the country and the Congress have
their eyes on yesterday's dog-and-pony show on socialized medicine,
House Democrats last night stashed a new provision in the intelligence
bill which is to be voted on today. It is an attack on the CIA:
the enactment of a criminal statute that would ban, "cruel, inhuman, and
degrading treatment." (See
here, scroll to p. 32.)
The provision is impossibly vague --
who knows what "degrading" means? Proponents will say that they
have itemized conduct that would trigger the statute (I'll get to that
in a second), but it is not true. The proposal says the conduct
reached by the statute "includes but is not limited to" the itemized
conduct (McCarthy's italics). That means any interrogation tactic
that a prosecutor subjectively believes is "degrading" (e.g., subjecting
a Muslim detainee to interrogation by a female CIA officer) could be the
basis for indicting a CIA interrogator.
The act goes on to make
it a crime to use tactics that have been shown to be effective in
obtaining life saving information and that are far removed from torture.
here . . .
Update: Michelle Malkin is reporting that House Republicans
were on the ball, they forced the Intel bill that contained the stealth
measure to be pulled.
|Obama Authorizes Assassination Of U.S.
|The liberals at Salon have their panties
all in a twist because both The New York Times and The Washington Post
confirm that Barack Obama has now expressly authorized the CIA to kill
the American-born Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, no matter where he is
found, no matter his distance from a battlefield.
Greenwald agonizesd at length about the extreme dangers and lawlessness
of allowing the Executive Branch the power to murder U.S. citizens far
away from a battlefield (i.e., while they're sleeping, at home, with
their children, etc.) and with no due process of any kind. He
won't repeat those arguments -- they're
here -- but he does want to highlight how unbelievably Orwellian and
tyrannical this is in light of these new articles today.
the NYT reports on Obama's assassination order and how it is justified
here . . .
|Obama's Jihad On "Jihad"
|The Washington Times
editorializes, to Obama, there's no such thing as an Islamic
Obama's latest strategic innovation in the war on
terrorism is to ignore jihad and maybe it will go away.
removing terms such as "jihad" and "Islamic extremism" from the U.S.
National Security Strategy in an attempt to convince Muslim countries
that America doesn't view them solely through the lens of
counterterrorism. It's reasonable to look beyond terrorism in
developing relationships with Islamic states. Our assistance
programs are based on humanitarian motives, for example, so they need
not explicitly draw links between promoting good will and hopefully
making it less likely that people will fly aircraft into our buildings.
But the National Security Strategy is not some kind of outreach
initiative, it is the framing document for America's global safety.
The United States cannot effectively combat the root causes of Islamic
extremism by ignoring them. The war on terror -- rather, the
"overseas contingency operation," in O Force terminology -- won't be
effective if this country overlooks the nature of the enemy and his
motives. The U.S. strategic blueprint is not the proper place for
a public-relations stunt.
Even the Muslim majority states in
question understand the religious component of terrorism as a motivator,
recruiting tool and strategic road map. They are threatened by
Islamic extremism even more than the United States and have no problem
describing the threat by its true nature, which must be understood if it
is to be defeated.
The most troubling signal is the one being
sent through the bureaucracy that any thoughtful discussion of Islamic
radicalism and the global threat it poses will be hazardous to one's
career. Analyses of the extremist Muslim threat will be
increasingly deleted from briefing papers, assessments and planning
documents. Those who continue to spread the alarm will be
marginalized and ignored. Such sanitizing may please the White
House, but it's likely to put the United States in more danger as
threats that should have been detected in advance slip by because
officials have been trained not to look for them.
development is a disturbing example of Obama's seeming obsession with
all things Muslim. It's
reminiscent of the Department of Homeland Security's 2009 draft glossary
of domestic extremist groups that listed Christian and Jewish
organizations as threats but didn't include any Muslim groups. Or
the administration's obstinate unwillingness to describe the Fort Hood
massacre as an example of Islamist terrorism, even though the shooter --
Nidal Malik Hasan -- clearly was wrapped up in
that ideology and shouted the traditional jihadist war cry "Allahu
Akbar!" before opening fire.
Obama's Muslim mania increasingly
pervades government and has yet to be adequately explained or even
addressed. It places America in growing peril.
|Obama Caves To Islamic Group’s Dictates
|Jim Kouri says that after more than a year of
prodding by terrorism apologists and radicals, Barack Obama and his
national security team are bending to their wishes.
yesterday the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or
CAIR, released a statement that they
"welcomed an announcement that the Obama administration will remove
'loaded' terms linking Islam to extremism" from a newly revised national
The Obama White House claims the change would
remove terms like "Islamic radicalism" from the National Security
Strategy, a document that was created by the previous administration to
outline the Bush doctrine, which CAIR and other suspicious groups
"We welcome this change in language by the Obama
administration as another step toward respectful and effective outreach
to Muslims at home and abroad," said CAIR National Executive Director
this positive change in language will lead to policies that will deal
more effectively with important issues such as peace with justice in the
Middle East and withdrawal of our nation’s forces from Iraq and
He recommended that media professionals and
commentators adopt similarly neutral and objective language and avoid
"loaded" terminology. Awad noted that "CAIR has been calling for
changes in the use of terminology falsely linking Islam to terrorism for
a number of years."
"CAIR is always playing the victim card, said
a decorated police officer.
"In other words, soldiers, cops and
politicians are supposed to ignore common sense so as to not hurt the
feelings of terrorists? Catholics did not fly planes into the
World Trade Center. Protestants didn’t attempt to blow up a plane
in Detroit. Jews didn’t plot terrorist attacks on the New York
City subway system and its passengers," said former intelligence officer
and police detective Mike Snopes.
|Barry And The Pirates
|J.R. Dunn is
reporting that the government of Kenya is no longer accepting
pirates captured by the international task force operating in the Red
Sea and approaches. Kenya claims that its justice system is
overloaded with Somali pirates and that it just can't handle any more of
them. This policy was initiated with no warning or even a public
The task force has already started cutting loose
pirates caught in the act. A Dutch vessel did so early last week,
followed by a U.S. Navy destroyer that tossed back a crew that had
actually opened fire with RPGs.
This is obviously a situation
that cannot be maintained. Those clowns have to be locked up
somewhere. To do otherwise -- to continue throwing them back like
so many underweight trout -- will turn the entire business into a game
and simply encourage the vast punk population of Somalia to try their
Which raises the question: what world leader happens to
have close relatives serving in the government of Kenya? That's
right -- none other than the Obamessiah himself. His father,
Barack Sr., was an economist in the first post-colonial government.
One of his half-brothers, Malik Obongo Obama, is a rising political
star, and I'm sure you wouldn't have to throw many stones to hit a
cousin or two employed by various ministries. And don't forget
cousin Raila Odinga. Obama has more personal pull in Kenya than in
any other country in the world.
Yet what has he done to address
Kenya's sudden dash for the exit? Nothing at all, as far as can be
seen. A number of possible solutions suggest themselves --
international funds to the cover the costs of imprisonment, private
prison companies encouraged to open facilities in the area, the
Organization of African States persuaded to step in. There are no
doubt plenty of other possibilities that could be suggested by people
more familiar with East Africa than I am.
And yet, it appears
that Obama is simply going to ignore the entire impasse, to give it the
silent treatment as he does with everything else that isn't of immediate
benefit to him. Not a single word has been heard from the White
House involving Kenya, and nobody from his lapdog media has seen fit to
bring it up. Does anyone care to bet how long it will be before we
see any action?
Of course, that's his prerogative. He's in
the office, and presidents get to choose which battles they fight.
But if he truly can't handle something so close to home, a problem where
he has actual personal contacts to draw on, then maybe he should start
thinking twice about posing as the grand redeemer where infinitely more
difficult challenges such as Mideast peace and nuclear proliferation are
|Obama Ignores Islamic Extremist Threat
|James Zumwalt says in June 1876, U.S. Army
General George Armstrong Custer was defeated by Cheyenne Indians at the
Battle of the Little Big Horn. In what became known as "Custer’s
Last Stand," defeat was attributed primarily to a false assumption.
Custer expected to encounter an enemy force of approximately equal size;
instead, he faced a force at least three times the strength of his.
That false assumption cost the charismatic general his life -- as well
as the lives of 267 men trusting in his leadership. Had Custer
been better informed -- and the threat better understood -- disaster may
well have been averted.
One hundred thirty-four years later, a
false assumption and lack of understanding by Barack Obama for a threat
of a new era could well spell similar disaster -- this time for an
There is a common thread tying together most
terrorist activity occurring around the world today. Whether it is
Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Russia, China, Yemen, Lebanon, Gaza, etc., that
common thread is Islamic extremism. And, when Islamic extremism
raises its ugly head, it matters not that most victims of its violence
are fellow Muslims. As was the case in the 20th Century, more
Muslims in the 21st Century are being killed by Islamic extremists than
by non-Muslims. One can only imagine the threat posed to
non-believers by an ideology whose believers do not hesitate to "eat
their own" in this manner.
The Bush Doctrine correctly
identified the threat by stating: "The struggle against militant Islamic
radicalism is the great ideological conflict in the early years of the
21st Century." But Obama is issuing new national security
guidelines from which any reference to religious terms such as "Islam,"
"Islamic extremism" and "jihad" is to be avoided.
According to a
U.S. government official, the rationale for this is that there is "a
very narrow segment" of the world’s population at risk of turning to
extremism but, by using such terms in referencing terrorism, we "risk
offending people by creating the impression that we think they are going
to go that way, when in fact they don’t."
By this logic, the
administration worries more about offending Muslims -- clearly not prone
to embracing extremism -- by avoiding any linkage between Islamic
extremism and terrorism than it does about educating both Muslims and
non-Muslims on what the real threat is. In other words, we don’t
want to run the risk of alienating non-extremist Muslims by pointing out
the 800 pound Islamic extremist gorilla in the room disrupting
everyone’s public order and safety.
This approach ignores a few
important factors, described
here . . .
|Jihadi Echoes Obama
says If you close your eyes and listen to Zarein Ahmedzay, the
jihadist convicted Friday for his role in unleashing a bomb in the New
York City subway system on the anniversary of the 9/11 Islamic jihad
attacks on America, you would here disturbing echoes of the policy of
Barack Obama and his dhimmi administration: "I strongly urge the
American people to stop supporting the war against Islam. And this
will be in their own interest. ... The real enemy of this country are
the ones destroying the country from within ... I believe it's a special
group, Zionist Jews, who want a permanent shadow government."
Obama hasn't spoken about "Zionist Jews," but the underlying sentiments
Ahmedzay's narrative reflects Obama's policy on
Islamic jihad. He urges America to stop defending herself against
the global jihad. Like Obama and his silly Secretary of Defense
Robert Gates, Obama suggests that fighting jihad will only...create
jihad. And as for all the jihadi attacks before Iraq and
Afghanistan operations, well...that's irrelevant, an inconvenient truth.
The left never lets logic and evidence get in the way of its
The day this New York subway jihad bomb
plot was foiled, Obama was in New York addressing the United Nations.
His speech was about the greatest threat facing mankind today: global
warming. I kid you not. He said on that occasion, "We are
determined to act. And we will meet our responsibility to future
generations." He said that a failure to address the threat could
lead to an "irreversible catastrophe." Time, he said, is "running
out," but "we can reverse" the problem. "If things go
business-as-usual, we will not live; we will die," he said. "Our
country will not exist." He told us that it wouldn't be easy, but
"I am here today to say that difficulty is no excuse for complacency.
Unease is no excuse for inaction."
All that would have been true
if he had been referring to the jihad against the United States.
But his only response to that is to give the jihadis whatever they want.
Obama's strategy in dealing with Islam is summed up by a single word
that is the very definition of Islam -- submission. His cover-up
of the Islamic motivation and other aspects of the Fort Hood jihad
massacre, the largest attack on a military base on American history,
will go down in history as the most blatant act of subversion ever
committed by a president of the United States.
And Friday, just
as Obama points to Israel as the problem, an Islamic jihadist who wanted
to commit mass murder with weapons of mass destruction in New York
blamed the "Zionist Jews" as well. No jihadist rant is complete
without full-on Islamic Jew-hatred. Ahmedzay stood up in court and
said, "Your Honor, I would like to quote from the Qur'an." Then he
quoted the passage of the Qur'an that Muslims use to justify suicide
bombing: "Quote, Verily, Allah has purchased of the believers their
lives and their wealth for the price of Paradise, to fight in the way of
Allah, to kill and get killed. It is a promise binding on the
truth in the Torah, the Gospel and the Qur'an. End of quote."
It isn't really in the Torah or Gospel at all, but it is in the
Qur'an: the promise of Paradise to those who "fight in the way of Allah"
and "kill and get killed." And Ahmedzay did more projecting, too:
When he said that he believed that "Zionist Jews" want to establish "a
permanent shadow government within the government of the United States
of America," it sounded as if he were describing the infiltration of the
Muslim Brotherhood at the senior levels of all branches of the U.S.
Nine years after 9/11, the image of the wrecked
Pentagon has become iconic and metaphorical. After the Fort Hood
report and the disinvite of Franklin Graham to the Pentagon at the
demand of the un-indicted co-conspirator, Hamas-tied hate sponsor CAIR,
the unforgettable image of the Pentagon destroyed by Muslims is quite
As for Zarein Ahmedzay, fifty years ago, this plotter to
overthrow the American government would be put to death. And he should
be. But he won't be.
Not in Barack Obama's America.
says the new Obama strategy refuses to blame Islamists as the root
A wise man once said -- If you can’t identify the
problem, you can’t find the solution. Once again, the radical
Obama shows that he is incapable problem solving and unable to break
free from his Alinsky-Ayers-Wright-ACORN foundation.
again, he puts America at risk.
The radical Obama Administration will soon
release their first National Security Strategy (NSS) Report.
The report will make clear that the US in not in a "War on Terror"
and that Islamists are not the root of terror.
Administration will soon issue its first National Security Strategy
("NSS"). How will it compare with those issued in 2002 and
2006 by the Bush Administration?
The most fundamental US
national security objectives are well established and bipartisan.
The highest priority is always to keep America and its allies safe.
This requires maintaining a strong military capacity; effective
alliances; and policies that enhance economic and social well being
at home and abroad. We encourage the spread of freedom,
democracy, and the rule of law throughout the world. We strive
to defeat terrorism and to stop the spread of WMD.
team will reconfirm all these objectives, but in different terms
than those used by the Bush Administration.
• "Leader" not Hegemon. The 2002
Bush NSS proclaimed America’s "unparalleled" power, eager to use
alliances but able if required to act alone. Obama’s NSS will
promise America shall remain strong, but describe its role as
"leader" of like-minded states and incapable of ensuring even its
own security without the help of others.
• No more
"War" on terror. The Bush strategy statements proclaim that
the US is in a worldwide "war" against terror. The Obama NSS
will avoid using the "war" word, pleasing those who believe
terrorism should be treated as criminal activity. But it will
call for "defeating terrorism" worldwide.
the "Preventive Force" Doctrine. The most notorious aspect of
the Bush strategy was the view that attacks of terrorist groups
cannot be deterred and must be prevented, through force if
necessary, and soon enough to stop threats before they are realized.
The Obama NSS will drop this declaration and stress the need to
prevent attacks through diplomacy and preparation. But it will
continue to use force preventively when necessary to kill known
• Adopting a "Multilateralist" Tone. The
Bush strategy promised to act through existing multilateral
institutions, including the UN, when possible; but it stressed its
willingness to "act alone" if required. Obama’s strategy will
emphasize the importance of acting through the UN and alliances.
But it will preserve the right to act alone, as NATO does, by
affirming that the Security Council has "primary" (though not
exclusive) responsibility for international security.
"Islamic Fundamentalists" become "Violent Extremists." The
Bush Administration described the current terrorist threat as having
been caused by Islamic Fundamentalists, while crediting Islam as one
of the world’s great religions. Obama will describe all
terrorists as "violent extremists," or with some such religiously
neutral phrase. But his targeted killings have all been of
|Obama Unprepared For Emerging Homegrown
|While the Obama administration ties up
resources investigating CIA interrogators and pushing civilian trials
for terrorists, a new threat has emerged in the form of homegrown
jihadists who are very hard to spot and stop. Yet Obama still
doesn’t understand that individuals like the suspected Times Square car
bomber are the frontline troops in a global terrorist war threatening
America, writes Newsmax Chief Washington Correspondent Ronald Kessler.
here . . .
|Political Correctness Governs Obama’s
says that the fact that the man accused of planting a large bomb in
Times Square almost made it out of the US and to safety in the Middle
East shows that the Obama administration can’t get the most basic things
right when confronted with a major terrorist incident.
suspect, Faisal Shahzad, bought a ticket to Dubai under his own name,
got on the plane, and was minutes from take-off before an alert customs
agent looked over the flight manifest and spotted his name. This
time we were fortunate that America’s number one terror suspect did not
successfully flee the country. It also proves my long standing
contention that we have plenty of dedicated and competent people in the
war against terrorists -- the gross incompetence only comes into play as
one moves up the leadership chain.
According to senior officials
in the Obama administration, quoted on ABC News, the reason Faisal
Shahzad was able to board the Emirates Airlines flight is that the
airline periodically, but not frequently, updates its no-fly list with
information from US intelligence agencies.
The obvious question
to ask -- but one that the incredibly tame and uncritical mainstream
media will not ask -- is why Emirates Airlines was not required by the
Transportation Security Administration to constantly update its no-fly
list. How can any airline with an apparently cavalier attitude
towards security be allowed to fly in and out of American airports?
People from the Middle East often feel offended when they are
required to screen passengers against a list of terrorist suspects.
The Obama administration has forbidden government employees to use terms
like "radical Islam" or "Jihad" for fear of offending Muslims. Did
they ease off monitoring Middle Eastern airlines for the same reason?
Update: Gateway Pundit is reporting that the Obama
Administration removed Faisal Shahzad from the Terror Surveillance List
before attack, and that Faisal had contact with Awlaki, the Taliban
chief, and Mumbai Massacre mastermind.
And Atlas Shrugs has
posted an image of what it calls Faisal's motivation.
|Obama Is Stonewalling On Terror Cases
says tensions are rising inside the House Intelligence Committee
over the White House's refusal to fully brief lawmakers on events
leading up to the arrest of accused Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad.
Angry at having been kept in the dark during previous terrorist
incidents, all nine Republican members of the committee have sent a
letter to Obama accusing the administration of withholding critical
national security information. "A clear pattern has emerged," the
lawmakers write, "of the administration refusing to provide requested
briefings or information or to engage with us despite repeated requests
on issues such as Guantanamo, the
Fort Hood attack, the Crotch
Bomber attack, Yemen, critical issues involving the FISA Court, and
now the Times Square attack."
The GOP committee members say the
law requires Obama to keep the House and Senate intelligence committees
"fully and currently" informed about intelligence matters. "The
administration may not lawfully refuse to fully and currently inform the
committee or instruct intelligence agencies not to provide requested
information necessary to intelligence oversight," they write.
That is a clear reference to the unhappiness many members have felt in
the days since the Times Square bombing attempt. Even though
administration officials were holding news conferences highlighting
their success in apprehending Shahzad, they ignored some congressional
requests for briefings. On Wednesday, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, who had
requested and not been given a briefing on the Times Square matter, said
the White House was preventing intelligence agencies from speaking to
Congress -- a pattern Hoekstra said has been consistent through the Ft.
Hood, Christmas Day, and now Times Square incidents. "There are
some really good people in the intelligence community who have wanted to
share information in all of those cases," Hoekstra said. "And they
were just very frustrated by the clamps that the White House has put on
The letter to Obama was signed by Hoekstra and Reps. Elton
Gallegly, Mac Thornberry, Mike Rogers, Sue Myrick, Roy Blunt, Jeff
Miller, Michael Conaway and Peter King -- the entire Republican side of
the Intelligence Committee. "We cannot work with you
collaboratively to ensure our national security if you do not meet these
fundamental obligations," they conclude.
Below is the entire text
of the letter.
Dear Mr. President,
We are writing to
express our significant concern at the affirmative efforts that the
administration has repeatedly taken to withhold information from
members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on
critical national security matters.
Unfortunately, a clear
pattern has emerged of the administration refusing to provide
requested briefings or information or to engage with us despite
repeated requests on issues such as Guantanamo, the Fort Hood
attack, the Christmas Day attack, Yemen, critical issues involving
the FISA Court, and now the Times Square attack. The law
unambiguously requires you personally to ensure that the
congressional intelligences committees are kept "fully and currently
informed" and that departments and agencies "furnish any information
or material concerning intelligence activities." The
administration may not lawfully refuse to fully and currently inform
the committee or instruct intelligence agencies not to provide
requested information necessary to intelligence oversight.
cannot work with you collaboratively to ensure our national security
if you do not meet these fundamental obligations.
|Obama's "Good Luck" Terrorism Strategy
|The Washington Times
says that Rep. Ike
Skelton, the Missouri Democrat, responded to Republican charges that
Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad's plot failed only because of luck,
said, "What's wrong with being lucky?"
Nothing at all -- until
the luck runs out.
Two potentially devastating terror attacks in
five months failed only because of terrorist incompetence. The
Bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was unable to ignite his suicide
bomb, sparing the lives of passengers on Northwest Airlines Flight 253. Had Mr. Shahzad's car bomb been assembled with greater care, hundreds of
people at Times Square might have been killed or wounded. They were
There was only bad luck for the victims of Fort
Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan. Luck also ran out for the victims
of Arkansas recruiting station shooter
Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad. Each
of these recent incidents reminds us that policies pursued by the Obama
administration have made the United States measurably less safe from
Consider the contribution administration
policies may have made to the near success of Mr. Shahzad's attack. It
was reported last week that Mr. Shahzad was on the Department of
Homeland Security's Traveler Enforcement Compliance System list as late
as 2008. The Obama administration removed him from that list. He also
was under scrutiny of the national Joint Terrorism Task Force until the
Obama administration waved it off the case.
Mr. Shahzad was
being watched for very good reasons. Like Maj. Hasan and Mr.
Abdulmutallab, he had ties to American-born Muslim radical cleric Anwar
al-Awlaki. He had family connections to the Mehsud clan, which plays a
leading role in the Pakistan Taliban. He traveled regularly to the
Pakistani frontier area, which is the epicenter of violent religious
extremism in that country. None of these things automatically made him a
terrorist, but they did provide a rational basis for keeping a close
watch on Mr. Shahzad. The Obama administration disagrees with the
rationale, apparently obsessed with downplaying the possibility that any
Muslim could ever be a domestic terrorist. It is the Obama team's
perverse twist on racial and ethnic profiling.
revelations about the case of Mr. Shahzad raise pertinent questions
regarding U.S. domestic security. Who gave the order to shut down
surveillance of Mr. Shahzad? Who removed him from the Traveler
Enforcement Compliance System list? Who else has been removed from this
and other lists and why? Were they removed simply because they were
Muslims and the administration believed that ipso facto they were being
persecuted unfairly? What have they been up to since being freed of
A top-to-bottom review of all such actions
taken by the Obama administration is in order. The public deserves to
know whether policy directives given since Obama took office materially
contributed to the near success of Mr. Shahzad's terror plot. There is
nothing wrong with luck. With this president, America needs all the luck
it can get.
|Obama Slashes New York's Anti-Terrorism
|Michael Mcauliff says the White House slashed
New York anti-terrorism funds amid buzz Obama will meet with NY Police
Department Times Square heroes.
Eleven days after the botched
plot to bomb Times Square, the Obama administration on Wednesday slashed
some $53 million from the city’s terror-fighting budget.
the administration to announce these cuts two weeks after the attempted
Times Square bombing shows they just don’t get it and are not doing
right by New York City," fumed Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).
top it off, the news arrives as Obama comes to town today amid buzz he
will meet with the very cops who helped thwart the bombing.
Obama will also be tapping the city’s deep pockets for the Democratic
"The President seems more interested in raising money for
political campaigns than providing New York the money it needs to defend
itself against Islamic terrorism," said Rep. Pete King (R-L.I.), the top
Republican on the Homeland Security Committee.
The cuts, to be
announced today, target the annual allocations for transit and port
security, legislators said.
here . . .
|No Money For You, NY
|The New York Post
editorializes -- Obama to New York: Drop dead. That was the
message Team Obama sent -- loud and clear -- yesterday in slashing
anti-terror funding for the city. But what do you expect?
The local congressional reps -- Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand and Chuck
Schumer and Reps. Jerrold Nadler and Carolyn Maloney, etc. -- have been
such lapdogs for Obama (at New York's expense), why wouldn't his team
feel free to hang the city out to dry?
Under the plan, the feds
will slice Gotham-area funds for transit and port security by $53
million -- 27 percent.
Never mind what happened less than two
weeks ago -- when a terrorist parked a ticking bomb smack in the heart
of Times Square. Never mind that the city suffered far more than
anywhere else on 9/11 -- and today remains Target No. 1 for jihadists.
The Times Square attack -- if not the plots against local
subways, bridges, synagogues, you name it -- should have reminded Obama
& Co. where to set up its first line of defense. (Hint: It's not
Pascagoula, Miss., which will get $1 million in port-security funding
Nor is there any doubt that terrorist operations aimed
at New York are as broad-based as they are deadly. Times Square
bomber Faisal Shahzad, for example, says he was trained in far-off
Pakistan. And yesterday, FBI agents raided sites in New York, New
Jersey, Massachusetts and Maine in connection with Shahzad's attack.
(Three people were arrested, though it wasn't clear if any played an
active role in the Times Square plot. )
counterterror efforts require money. And since attacks on New York
are meant to hurt the whole nation, Washington has a duty to provide it.
Certainly the city's congressional delegation has an obligation to fight
Yet Gillibrand, Schumer, Nadler & Co. have become so
ineffective, Team Obama apparently thinks it can get more political
mileage by spreading funds around.
Sure, Schumer griped about
the funding, for whatever that was worth. (Mayor Bloomberg was so
worried, he tried to personally get Obama to change course.)
ironic: These Dems are supposed to have some sway over their party-mates
in the White House. Yet Team Obama is taking New York for granted
-- and New York's reps seem helpless to do much about it.
makes you wonder: What good are they to New York, anyway?
|A Morally Ill And Wholly Degenerate
says that if this doesn't unnerve you and turn your stomach
.............. you are made of stone.
The Daniel Pearl beheading "captured the world's imagination"
-- spoken like an ..........anti-Semitic Muslim terrorist. Pearl was
beheaded because of Islamic anti-Semitism and violent jihadi doctrine.
Freedom of the press had nothing to do with it. And this coming from a
plant who is attempting to restrict these freedoms ..............press
This is terrible. Obama is a sick man.
adds that’s crazy sick. Obama told reporters yesterday that the
video of Islamic radicals sawing off a Daniel Pearl’s head with a butter
knife "captured the world’s imagination."
"Obviously, the loss of
Daniel Pearl was one of those moments that captured the world’s
imagination because it reminded us of how valuable a free press is."
No, Barack. It was horrifying.
And… It had nothing to do
with freedom of the press. They beheaded Daniel Pearl because he was an
American and a Jew. They beheaded Daniel Pearl because they were
Islamic radicals. Something you have not yet figured out.
|Obama Sides With Hamas
says the Obama White House is now siding with Hamas over Israel.
Despite the documented ambush on the Israeli soldiers this week by
radical Islamists in the Mediterranean, the White House is pressuring
Israel to end its blockade of Gaza essentially undermining Israel’s last
wall of defense against the Islamic killers of Hamas.
refused to side with Israel after the attack and told Prime Minister
Netanyahu to go back to Israel out of concern that the Israeli Prime
Minister would use the White House as his backdrop while discussing the
The White House said on Friday Israel’s
blockade of the Gaza Strip was unsustainable and urged a Gaza aid
vessel sent by pro-Palestinian activists to divert to an Israeli
port to reduce the risk of violence.
"We are working urgently
with Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and other international
partners to develop new procedures for delivering more goods and
assistance to Gaza," said Mike Hammer, spokesman for the White House
National Security Council.
"The current arrangements are
unsustainable and must be changed. For now, we call on all
parties to join us in encouraging responsible decisions by all sides
to avoid any unnecessary confrontations," Hammer said in a
Israel was preparing to intercept the Irish-owned
ship the Rachel Corrie, bound for Gaza with aid and activists, after
its naval operation on Monday in which nine Turkish activists were
killed on another ship when it was boarded by Israeli forces.
The White House is asking Hamas to act
"responsibly?" Since when has Hamas acted responsibly?
wrote this week:
Without forward or active defense, Israel is
left with but the most passive and benign of all defenses -- a
blockade to simply prevent enemy rearmament. Yet, as we speak,
this too is headed for international de-legitimation. Even the
United States is now moving toward having it abolished.
But, if none of these is permissible, what’s left?
Exactly. Obama wants the Israelis defenseless. There
can be no other explanation.
|Obama Still Mulling Where To Try 9/11
|Agence France-Presse is reporting that the
Obama administration is still mulling where to hold the trials of the
alleged co-plotters behind the September 11 attacks, US attorney general
Eric Holder said Sunday.
"We are still in the process of
considering that," Holder said in an interview with CBS "Face The
Nation," adding "No decision's been made yet as to exactly where the
trial is going to occur."
Holder, who has vowed to push for the
death penalty for the self-confessed mastermind of the 2001 attacks,
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, recalled he had recommended the trial should be
held in civilian court.
But many are still pushing for the trial
to be held in a military court, and the process has bogged down with no
trial yet underway more than eight years after the attacks.
here . . .
|Obama Cleanses The Terrorism Glossary
|Rowan Scarborough says Obama and his cast of
aides will lash out at Republicans, the Tea Party, banks, oil companies
and Arizona, but when it comes to radical Islam, Obama and the Obots
treat it with kid gloves or ignore it altogether.
show that -- rather than identifying the enemy for what it is, bands of
Islamic extremists who use their religion to justify murder -- the
administration searches for the root cause of terrorism, a "why do they
hate us?" obsession, which serves only to paralyze a global war to
defeat terrorist killers.
Islamic extremists use mosques to raise
funds, recruit and plan attacks. In Pakistan tribal areas, Taliban
and al Qaeda use mosques as safe havens and as munitions stockpiles.
Imams, Muslim religious leaders, use their positions to preach hate and
encourage violence, citing verses from the Koran.
Shahzad pleaded guilty this week to trying to blow up an SUV in Times'
Square, he declared himself a "Muslim soldier."
The bottom line
is that Islam and terrorism are intertwined. America will never
understand its enemy, an enemy dedicated to its destruction, unless it
comes to grips with that fact.
here . . .
|Only A Terror Attack Can Save Obama
|Paul Watson says a former senior advisor to
Bill Clinton says that the only thing which can rescue Barack Obama’s
increasingly tenuous grip on power as his approval figures continue to
plunge is a terror attack on the scale of Oklahoma City or 9/11, another
startling reminder that such events only ever serve to benefit those in
Buried in a Financial Times article about Obama’s
"growing credibility crisis" and fears on behalf of Democrats that they
could lose not only the White House but also the Senate to Republicans,
Robert Shapiro makes it clear that Obama is relying on an October
surprise in the form of a terror attack to rescue his presidency.
"The bottom line here is that Americans don’t believe in President
Obama’s leadership," said Shapiro, adding, "He has to find some way
between now and November of demonstrating that he is a leader who can
command confidence and, short of a 9/11 event or an Oklahoma City
bombing, I can’t think of how he could do that."
warning should not be dismissed lightly. He was undersecretary of
commerce for economic affairs dung Clinton’s tenure in the Oval Office
and also acted as principal economic adviser to Clinton in his 1991-1992
campaign. Shapiro is now Director of the Globalization Initiative
of NDN and also Chair of the Climate Task Force. He is a prominent
globalist who has attended numerous Bilderberg Group meetings over the
Shapiro is clearly communicating the necessity for a
terror attack to be launched in order to give Obama the opportunity to
unite the country around his agenda in the name of fighting terrorists,
just as Bush did in the aftermath of 9/11 when his approval ratings shot
up from around 50% to well above 80%.
here . . .
The October Surprise is
|Obama Supported Libyan Terrorist Release
|Angry White Dude
says in breaking news
that will surprise no one, the UK Sunday Times reveals that the Obama
administration was knee-deep in the freeing of the Libyan terrorist
Abdel Baset al-Megrahi. He’s the murderer who blew up the Pan Am
flight over Lockerbie, Scotland. In a letter to Scottish
officials, which Obama has sought to keep secret, Richard LeBaron,
deputy head of the US embassy in London wrote:
"Nevertheless, if Scottish authorities come
to the conclusion that Megrahi must be released from Scottish
custody, the US position is that conditional release on
compassionate grounds would be a far preferable alternative to
prisoner transfer, which we strongly oppose."
Remember Obama saying that Americans were
"surprised, disappointed and angry" after news of the release came to
light? He was right. Americans were and are angry, but Obama
is not. And once again Hussein keeps his perfect record of
screwing America and Americans!
If you remember, al Megrahi is
the terrorist who had only a few weeks left to live…..many months ago.
Mark my word, that piece of dirt Libyan will outlive all of us. He
received a hero’s welcome in Libya that "shocked" Scotland and America,
of course Makes me sick.
Al Megrahi's hero's welcome
back in Libya following his transfer.
I’m telling you, we could not do worse if Hugo
Chavez was living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. He basically is.
Obama is the worst enemy America has ever had in a position to hurt us
so deeply. AWD is spitting mad to find out Obama was complicit in
this murderer’s release, but I’m not surprised. Every day brings a
new low to America under the Obama regime.
Related: Obama faces rising pressure to
publish Lockerbie bomber release letter that Scottish officials say
gives grudging support to the freeing of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.
Secret support for Lockerbie Bomber reveals the
need for a "Lies Czar" in the White House.
stand with them [Muslims] should the political winds shift in an ugly
direction." -- Barack Hussein Obama
|Just Like Bush/Cheney Only Worse
|Blogger "peeltheonion" says an A.C.L.U report
on the furtherance of police state mentality and policy under the Obama
administration, provide more reasons to impeach Obama now before the
deteriorating economy and his Hitler-like mental state as his popularity
evaporates and his policies make him more and more hated, push him to
bipass [sic] strict constitutional limitations and move for one man one
In its July 22 report, "Establishing a New Normal," the
American Civil Liberties Union establishes that the Obama administration
has continued and even intensified many of the Bush-Cheney police-state
measures, while adding a few of its own. They say, "on a range of
issues including accountability for torture, detention of terrorism
suspects, and use of lethal force against civilians, there is a very
real danger that the Obama administration will enshrine permanently
within the law, policies and practices that were widely considered
extreme and unlawful during the Bush administration."
1. Government Secrecy -- The Obama
administration has maintained and even intensified Bush-Cheney's
illegal withholding of information, for example. "The administration
has fought to keep secret hundreds of records relating to the Bush
administrations rendition, detention, and interrogation policies.
2. Indefinite Detention Without Trial -- Obama asserts
that he has the right to hold terrorism suspects indefinitely
without trial, even suspects captured far from a conventional
3. Murder, Inc. -- Then there's Obama's
"targeted killing" program for suspected terrorists -- including US
citizens -- located far away from zones of actual armed conflict.
4. Illegal Spying on Americans -- The Obama administration
has continued Bush-Cheney's illegal, warrantless FISA spying on
Americans. And over the last eighteen months, Obama's administration
has defended the FISA Amendments Act in the same way that the last
5. Freedom of Speech -- "In an
important case that reached the Supreme Court, the Obama
administration took the position that it could prosecute individuals
under a statute that bars the provision of material support to
terrorist organizations even if the support in question consists
solely of speech.
here . . .
|Obama Pays Off Jihadists
|Barack Obama's advisers plan to remove terms
such as "Islamic radicalism" from a document outlining national security
strategy and will use the new version to emphasize that the U.S. does
not view Muslim nations through the lens of terrorism, counterterrorism
The change would be a significant shift in the
National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush
Doctrine of preventive war. It currently states, "The struggle
against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of
the early years of the 21st century."
The officials described the
changes on condition of anonymity because the document is still being
written and is unlikely to be released for weeks, and the White House
would not discuss it. But rewriting the strategy document is the
latest example of Obama putting his stamp on U.S. foreign policy, as
with his promises to dismantle nuclear weapons and limit the situations
in which they can be used.
The revisions are part of a larger
effort about which the White House talks openly, one that seeks to
change not just how the U.S. talks to Muslim nations, but also what it
talks to them about, from health care and science to business startups
That shift away from terrorism has been building
for a year, since Obama went to Cairo and promised a "new beginning" in
the relationship between the U.S. and the Muslim world. The White
House believes the previous administration based that relationship
entirely on fighting terrorism and winning the war of ideas.
"You take a country where the overwhelming majority are not going to
become terrorists, and you go in and say, 'We're building you a hospital
so you don't become terrorists.' That doesn't make much sense,"
National Security Council staffer Pradeep Ramamurthy said.
Ramamurthy runs the administration's Global Engagement Directorate, a
four-person National Security Council team that Obama launched last May
with little fanfare and a vague mission to use diplomacy and outreach
"in pursuit of a host of national security objectives." Since
then, the division has not only helped change the vocabulary of fighting
terrorism, but also has shaped the way the country invests in Muslim
businesses, studies global warming, supports scientific research and
Before diplomats go abroad, they hear from the
Ramamurthy or his deputy, Jenny Urizar. When officials from the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration returned from Indonesia,
the NSC got a rundown about research opportunities on global warming.
Ramamurthy maintains a database of interviews conducted by 50 U.S.
embassies worldwide. And business leaders from more than 40
countries head to Washington this month for an "entrepreneurship summit"
for Muslim businesses.
|Obama Halts Prosecution Of USS Cole Bomber
says it's a sleepy Friday in late August, Obama is on another
vacation, Congress is out of town, no one is paying much attention.
What better time for the Obama administration to pull the plug, once
again, on military commissions? This time, it has halted the case
of top al-Qaeda operative Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who was to be
prosecuted by a military court for the Cole bombing.
None of this
is terribly surprising. Prosecuting the Cole case by military
commission sticks in the Left's craw because it shows the incoherence of
the Obama/Holder position. They want to treat the war like a crime
and endow our enemies with all the rights and advantages of civilian
courts; yet, they went military in the Cole case, despite the fact that
there is a pending Justice Department civilian indictment addressing
that attack. There can be only one explanation for that: they are
afraid the case against Nashiri is weak and might not hold up under
(slightly) more exacting civilian court due process. That is, the
Obama/Holder position is not principled -- for all their "rule of law"
malarkey, they are willing to go where they have the best chance to win.
But there were no military commissions when the Cole was bombed, so what
is the basis for trying it militarily? Answer: the 9/11 attacks
and the ensuing war . . . except the Left doesn't accept that it's a war
and the administration wants to prosecute the 9/11 plotters in civilian
court. None of it makes any sense.
I have been saying for a
while now: Keep your eye on the civilian prosecution against Ahmed
Ghailani, one of the embassy bombers. That case is now pending in
Manhattan federal court before Judge Lewis Kaplan, who has made
significant rulings in favor of the government -- declining to throw the
case out on the grounds of "torture" and delay. As I said back in
It is . . . worth noting that Ghailani is
not charged just with blowing up the embassies. The indictment
against him alleges the overarching al-Qaeda conspiracy to murder
Americans -- going back to 1991. The same indictment, with a
few tweaks to add the terrorist rampages that occurred after the
embassy bombings, could easily be used to charge the 9/11 plotters,
as well as other enemy combatants.
Despite all the outrage it
stirred, Attorney General Holder has not abandoned his push for a
civilian trial of [Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other 9/11
plotters] in New York. Don't be surprised if the Justice
Department uses the Ghailani ruling to argue that the naysayers'
concerns about giving KSM a soapbox are overblown. Don't be
surprised if Justice tries to slide the 9/11 attacks right into the
embassy-bombing indictment. That would land KSM squarely
before Judge Kaplan.
What I said about the 9/11 plotters can also be
said about Nashiri: the pending embassy bombing indictment could easily
be adjusted to add the Cole attack. If I were Holder and Obama,
and I were hell-bent on giving the top al-Qaeda terrorists civilian
trials, I would supersede the embassy bombing indictment to add the
terrorists involved in both the 9/11 and Cole attacks to the case before
Judge Kaplan. But . . . I would delay announcing that I was doing
this until after the November elections because of the uproar it would
cause, and the hot seat on which it would put Democrats already
beleaguered in their reelection bids.
But that's just me.
I'm sure the administration wouldn't think of doing something like that,
|Obama Lifts Taliban Morale
|The Edmonton Journal
says the announcement by Barack Obama that American troops will
begin pulling out of Afghanistan in July 2011 has raised Taliban morale,
according to the country's president, Hamid Karzai.
He also said
there would be no progress in the nine-year campaign while insurgents
still had safe havens in Pakistan.
Karzai told visiting U.S.
congressmen that the date had boosted Taliban morale "to some extent."
"The lack of progress in the war on terror has two factors: one,
the terror sanctuaries have not been addressed and second, because
civilians were killed," he said.
Washington has emphasized that
the deadline will only mark the start of a withdrawal and depends on
progress in stabilizing the country.
Karzai has repeatedly
voiced frustration that NATO is not doing enough to pursue Taliban
sanctuaries in Pakistan. Rangin Dadfar Spanta, Afghanistan's
security adviser, said U.S. efforts in Afghanistan were being betrayed
by Islamabad's support for terrorists.
"The terrorists' main
mentor continues to receive billions of dollars in aid and assistance.
How is this fundamental contradiction justified?" he said.
|"We Can Absorb A Terrorist Attack"
|Ace of Spades has
an excerpt from Bob Woodward's
new book, as quoted in the Washington Post:
"We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do
everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest
attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger."
A little context here. Obama and the leftist
media will attempt to spin this as merely descriptive, and as a tribute
to America's resiliency. After all -- we did survive 9/11, didn't
we? (Well, actually, 2996 of us did not survive 9/11, but apart
from them, we survived.)
This is merely Obama talking up
America's capacity to endure, they will say.
But it's not.
This is a meme that has been circulating on the left for quite a while,
usually secretly and among themselves only, but sometimes,
ill-advisedly, being pushed out into public as a trial balloon.
The idea, of course, is that America overreacted to 9/11, and 50,000
people die every year in car crashes, and we don't freak out about that,
do we? No, we accept these as acceptable losses in the bigger
picture (that is, we want to drive places) and we take the exchange.
We drive, some of us will die. Sound bargain.
killer notion here -- the idea of bargain. Of what is being
exchanged for these deaths. In the case of automobile collisions,
well, sure, we have mobility and freedom. That's something.
But the left is pushing this idea that we can safely "absorb" many
new 9/11's with an eye towards getting us to "accept" the greater
bargain they fatuously offer -- peace, and a general wind-down of
post-9/11 security "overreactions" like the FBI tracking Muslims
suspected of terrorist ties. If only we didn't overreact to the
occasional mass-murder, we could go about our business without war,
without increased security measures, without "Islamophobia," without the
rest of it.
The problem, you see, is primarily within us, those
being targeted for murder. If only we understood that this was a
good bargain in exchange for living in a multicultural country and
global economy, then we could be good citizens of the world and not lash
out so terribly and uselessly when some of the more aggressive
proponents of multiculturalism blow up a few of our buildings.
They will spin this, but this is what Obama is getting at, what the left
is constantly saying, but which leftist politicians are careful never to
say publicly: for the good of relations with the Muslim world we're just
going to have to be mature about mass murder.
|Obama Enabling Violent Jihad
Connie Hair says the Obama administration's first
show trial for a violent Guantanamo Bay jihadi in a civilian court
-- a man who has never set foot in America -- and endowing this
enemy combatant with full citizenship-level Fifth Amendment rights
is unraveling in the courtroom and putting America at risk.
It would be a laughable, "I told you so" moment if it weren't so
dangerous. Stopping these violent jihadis from killing
Americans is the government's job. The Obama administration is
putting American lives at risk and jeopardizing the integrity of our
legal system which was not designed to handle war crimes.
Dealing with violent jihadists on the worldwide
battlefield is a matter for military not civilian courts. Matters as
simple as chains of custody for evidence take on different standard
when dealing with America's civilian courts. Our soldiers are not
law enforcement officers. They are paid to fight wars -- to
kill people and blow
things up -- not read Miranda rights and put evidence in baggies on the
To left-wing elitists like Obama, acts of
terrorism are matters for lawyers not soldiers. Now the first of
these Gitmo detainee civilian court trials has been delayed this
week because the star witness was barred from testifying by trial
judge Lewis Kaplan.
|The Jihad Against America is Increasing
Muhammad, the self-proclaimed prophet of Allah, died in 632 AD. As
historian James Carroll notes in his forthcoming book about Jerusalem,
"The next year, only two years after the Byzantine Christians had
reconquered Jerusalem…a mounted force of Bedouin fighters who revered
the Prophet's memory invaded the Byzantine-controlled territory of
Palestine, near Gaza." They called themselves Muslims.
five years after Muhammad's death, Umar ibn al-Khattab, his successor
"led tribal bands as one army, quickly taking control of lands from Iraq
to Egypt." In 637 AD, "Muslim forces laid siege to Jerusalem."
With the exception of a brief period in the twelfth century, Muslim rule
of Jerusalem, a city sacred to Jews and Christians, "would last one and
a third millennia until 1917."
A recent survey taken in Islamic
countries by the Pew Research foundation revealed that a majority in the
Muslim world still favor cutting off hands for theft, stoning people to
death for adultery, and insist that Islam play a major role in politics.
What many in the West still fail to understand is that the grip of Islam
and its seventh century mindset remains fully intact for many of the
more than a billion Muslims worldwide.
The resurgence of a
militant Islam threatens to drag the entire world back to an era of
barbarity and ignorance banished by Western civilization, the
enlightenment, and the spread of Democracy. The brief period of
tolerance for other faiths exhibited during the Islamic conquest of
Spain was the exception, not the rule.
In our era it was George
W. Bush who thwarted Muslim dreams of world domination. Following
9/11 it was his resistance that protected Americans against further
attacks during his two terms in office.
In a November commentary,
Dr. Walid Phares, a senior fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of
Democracies and author of "Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies Against
America", noted that "Throughout the summer and fall, U.S. authorities
witnessed a significant rise in jihadist activity, using increasingly
sophisticated operational strategies."
"According to open-source
reports, between 2001 and 2008, U.S. agencies stopped one or two terror
attempts a year. However, from 2009 until today, the government
has been uncovering one or two cases a month, a troubling growth in
It should be lost on no one that the
increase coincides with the advent of the Obama administration and his
absurd claims that America is not a Christian nation or that Muslims
played any role in its history other than as Barbary pirates.
Largely unreported, on a weekly basis throughout the Middle East and
elsewhere, Islam's holy warriors continue to kill Muslims and
Christians. In the West, they have perpetrated terrorist attacks
in London, Madrid, and on 9/11 in New York.
On December 9,
federal officials arrested a Maryland man and charged him with plotting
to blow up an Army recruiting center near Baltimore. Antonio
Martinez, a 21-year-old Muslim convert who calls himself Muhammed
Hussain, wanted to kill as many U.S. soldiers as possible.
Earlier, in Portland, Oregon, Mohamed Osman Mohamud, a Somali youth, was
thwarted from killing Americans during a Christmas tree lighting
celebration. Farooque Ahmed, a Virginia man, was arrested in
connection with a plot to attack the Washington, D.C. subway system;
Ahmed, a native of Pakistan, had been granted U.S. citizenship.
Only the failure of his car bomb prevented Faisal Shahzad, also formerly
of Pakistan and a U.S. citizen, from killing and injuring Americans in
New York's Times Square. A trial is set for Najibullah Zazi, the
father of Mohammad Wali Zazi who pled guilty to a terrorist plot
involving the New York subway system.
It is folly to think that
America will not continue to be subject to terror attacks, but the Obama
administration has largely refused to publicly confront this reality
except in the form of the intrusive and objectionable airport pat-downs
and scans. If a commercial airliner is bombed, it will surely have
begun its flight in a foreign airport.
Napolitano, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security
recently announced that Ari Alikhan, who DHS identified as "a devout
Muslim", as the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and swore in
Kareem Shora, another "devout Muslim" born in Damascus, Syria, as a
member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council.
How crazed is
this? Or are we meant to wait until Obama is voted out of office
until we can begin to feel safe anywhere in America?
Copyright Beckwith 2010
All right reserved