Tag Archives: Al Qaeda

Feeling the Pain of the Falling Man of September 11th

This article was originally published in a number of publications on September 11, 2002. With a slight edit to reflect our current circumstances, I present it to you as a tribute to the souls lost on September 11, 2001.

Everyone remembers the horrifying images of September 11, 2001. Anyone alive and aware on that date will live with those images the rest of their life. The scenes of havoc and panic, destruction and slaughter, demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that even though the United States military is the best trained and well equipped in the world, our country remains vulnerable to the wicked.

When one accepts the fact — and it is a fact — that the free world, not just the United States, is at war with violent Islamists, this story is all the more chilling and disturbing.

The mainstream media in the United States has taken the images of September 11th, 2001 off the television and out of the newspapers, but for the obligatory image on the anniversary itself. They say that the images are too disturbing, that they incite a want for revenge rather than allow for closure. But they are wrong to do this.

The United States should not and cannot simply forgive and forget just because the our current president fallaciously insisted that al Qaeda was on the run and that the Islamic State is “jayvee.” Facts demonstrate that al Qaeda, the Taliban – and now the Islamic State and Boko Haram; violent Islamists, have been planning and preparing to implement their global campaign of terrorism — their declared war against the Western World — since before 1993, well before September 11th. Their central location for training may have been eliminated but they had prepared for that, splintering like roaches to the four corners of the world, preparing, planning and implementing their battle plans made decades before.

Make no mistake, they are a cunning adversary. They understood that the US would come after them. They planned for this event. Now they have metastasized and their threat is even greater than before September 11, 2001.

This war cannot be about “tolerance” or forgiving, or about understanding the “reasons why” someone would want to murder innocents whether it be with an airplane, a car bomb, a suicide vest or a saif. This battle has to be about freedom and the right of innocents to live their lives in liberty, free of fear from an unholy sect of genocidal totalitarians who offer only oppression, dominance and terror as their bounty.

The Progressive left and the complicit mainstream media would have us believe that it is America that is to blame for her audacity in the promotion of freedom and free markets, liberty and the vision of a world free of dictators who torture, murder and slaughter for power. To that extent, Progressives and the agenda-driven media are dangerous and a direct threat to the existence of our country, teetering on the brink of treason and sedition. They will attack these words by saying that I have intimated that they are not patriotic and un-American.

For the record, I hold the belief that anyone who believes the United States brought the attacks of September 11, 2001, onto itself IS unpatriotic and un-American. I believe that they have become toadies for our enemy and should be treated and opposed as such. While they manipulate the true meaning of the First Amendment’s free speech clause, they attempt to indoctrinate and transform our youth and the less than suspecting among us into believing in the doctrine of self-loathing, an oppressive ideology born of the less than great thinkers of Europe almost a century ago.

In its March 15, 2006 edition, The Mirror, a British publication (the American mainstream media too gutless to publish such truth), revealed the identity of a man who had to make the unimaginable decision of whether to burn to death in the raging fires of the World Trade Center on September 11th or escape the pain of hell on earth by leaping from the top of one of the world’s tallest buildings to his certain death.

The article was titled, Revealing the Identity of the Falling Man of 9/11. Jonathan Briley was “The Falling Man of 9/11.”

I would beg each of you to read the article but The Mirror, along with Esquire and a number of publications who once cared about such things, has taken the article down. You can search his name – Jonathan Briley – and look at the pictures and feel Jonathan Briley’s helplessness, his terror, and then try to imagine the split second of excruciating pain that he felt when his body hit the cement below with such force that he, a human being just seconds before, was left a bloodstain on a sidewalk, slaughtered like road kill by barbarian Islamists.

The people of the United States need to rekindle the flame of emotional anguish about the attacks of September 11th, 2001. We need to seethe. We need to employ the ingenuity and intelligence that is fostered in a free society dedicated to liberty, and scream our ire from the top of the world. Then we need to take definitive action.

If we are to wage war on terrorist; on violent Islamists, then let us be the ones who strike terror into the hearts of our enemies. Let us bring terror to those who blow-up innocents, saw the heads off hostages and threaten the world with words of annihilation and nuclear Armageddon. If we are to be in a war we did not choose to begin then in the memory of all who have fallen in the quest to provide freedom and liberty to the world, let us be the ones who act decisively to end it.

We need to embrace the undeniable truth that the free world is at war and cease pandering to those who would wake up one day in the future ruing the fact that we should have acted earlier.

A pre-emptive strike doctrine for the United States? Eradicating the world of the likes of al Qaeda, the Islamic State, Boko Haram and every other Islamist organization that preaches the conquest and servitude of the “dhimmi”? You’re damn right!

Stupid Is As Stupid Does

Stunningly (okay, maybe I am not as stunned as I could be), the Obama Administration’s State Department has succeeded in achieving the same stunted intellect toward the threats made by violent Islamists as was held by our government in the days before September 11, 2001. The critical mass moment came in the announcement that State Department rejects the Islamic State’s claim that is it at war with US.

The Washington Free Beacon reports:

“The State Department downplayed comments from Islamic State (ISIL or ISIS) leaders that they are at war with America, arguing that their violence is not directed at any particular country or race.

“At a briefing Thursday, a reporter brought up anti-American comments from ISIL leaders: ‘I mean, even they are announcing, ISIL people in their message, whatever, the recorded message, other messages, that now we are in a war with America.’

“‘This is not about ISIL versus the United States,’ State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf objected. ‘They are killing anyone who gets in their way: Sunnis, Shia Muslims, Christians, Yazidis, Iraqis, Syrians, anyone who gets in their way — and now an American.'”

At almost the very same moment, The Washington Times reports:

“Sunni radicals with the Islamic State terrorist group have posted a number of tweets aimed at the citizens of Chicago, including a picture of an unidentified man on Michigan Avenue holding a paper with a handwritten Arabic message: ‘We are in your streets’…

“The location of the tweet was 307 N. Michigan Avenue at the city’s Old Republic Building, Chicago’s WGN network reported Friday. The tweet, dated June 20, allegedly says, ‘Soldiers of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria will pass from here soon.'”

Stupid is as stupid does. But this is a very special kind of stupid. It is an almost exact replication of what happen in both 1996 and again in 1998, when the US State Department – and, indeed, the entirety of the US government – ignored Osama bin Laden’s two declarations of war against the United States. The result of this arrogant attitude came in the slaughter of 2,977 people and an additional 1,140 responders and people who worked, lived or studied in Lower Manhattan at the time who have since been diagnosed with cancer.

One has to wonder. Is the Obama Administration so inept; so ill-qualified to lead, that it simply doesn’t understand the immediate danger our country’s people face? Is it that they are just so incredibly immersed in their ideology that they would be willing to watch our people plummet, burning in the skies, from another skyscraper? Or is it that this administration is literally sympathetic to the Islamist cause?

That last thought would have warranted the “conspiracy theory” label just a year or two ago. Now, frighteningly, it has become a legitimate question.

Re-Writing Benghazi for Political Purposes

In typical Progressive fashion, the New York Times set itself to re-writing the events of al Qaeda’s 2012 attack on the US embassy compound in Benghazi, Libya; an attack that took the lives of four Americans, including a US ambassador. At any other point in the history of our country, the assassination of a US ambassador by a foe that launched an attack against American citizens the magnitude of September 11, 2001, would be greeted with a united front; embraced as tantamount to an act of war. But the United States has been co-opted by the Progressive Movement and when one of their own is in the White House – or when one of their own is positioning for the White House – history is subject to revision.

Incredibly, the New York Times – long understood by “the aware” to have ceased being a provider of truth and fact, in deference to position and ideology – has issued a “report” that not only flies in the face of the facts (facts acknowledged not only by State Department officials intimate with the events, but by factious elements of al Qaeda in Libya) but go well beyond any semblance of credibility in its conclusions:

“The investigation by The Times shows that …Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.

“The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses…”

This accounting completely disregards many facts that congressional hearings have brought forth from State Department and CIA operatives knowledgeable on the events of September 11, 2012. It also defies testimony by those with infinitely more knowledge on military capabilities than a lone researcher at the New York Times, including elected intelligence committee members from both sides of the political divide:

“‘I dispute that, and the intelligence community, to a large volume, disputes that,’ Michigan GOP Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told FOX News Sunday.  He also repeatedly said the story was ‘not accurate.’

“Rogers was joined on the show by California Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff, who said, ‘intelligence indicates Al Qaeda was involved.’”

That said, the efforts by New York Times researcher David D. Kirkpatrick are not centered in confronting the facts of the events of Benghazi, they are focused on changing the narrative ahead of the 2016 General Election.

It cannot be denied that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – now the Progressive front-runner for the Democrat nomination for president two years out from the 2016 General Election – was considerably marginalized by not only ineffective stewardship of the embassy compound in Benghazi in the days prior to the attack, but by the almost non-existent  response during the attack and the incredibly  inept response to the slaughter when called on the carpet by those elected to represent the people. This “triple whammy,” if left “un-spun,” would cripple the candidacy of even the most connected of Progressives – even with the support of a favorable mainstream media.

Enter the New York Times and David D. Kirkpatrick. Devoted sycophants to the Progressive cause, they have embarked on the rejuvenation of Ms. Clinton’s political reputation by attempting to re-write the facts of the event, already proven, in an effort to move her out of the ring of responsibility; in an effort to remove the stain of culpability and responsibility from the fabric of her candidacy. Sadly, even those in the mainstream media who exist on the Right side of the political divide, are tunnel-visioned in their focus; focused on the report and the reports conclusions rather than the motives behind the creation of the report – a work of fiction in its conclusions.

If the establishment Right – both inside the beltway and in the mainstream media, along with the Conservatives in the new media, fail to spotlight this blatant attempt to re-write history; fail to spotlight and explain the motives behind this manipulation of the truth, then we, as a nation, will have fallen – once again – for the Progressive tactic of re-definition of words, facts and events, in their quest to advance the Progressive agenda – and agents who would advance that agenda – into the accepted American lexicon.

The fact of the matter – and this cannot be denied when the facts are acknowledged and accepted – is this: Ms. Clinton failed to answer the “emergency 3am phone call” and because of that people died and an act of war against the United States by our global foe – al Qaeda and the radical Islamists who fuel the movement – was executed. In Ms. Clinton’s failure to act as an adequate steward of the US State Department, and in her refusal to resign for President Obama’s completely disingenuous excuse for the catalyst for the attacks – an excuse that Mr. Kirkpatrick and the New York Times have advanced – she has exposed herself as just another Progressive political minion who will do anything and say anything to gain power; who will lie, cheat, steal and deceive to advance the Progressive cause.

But then, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

Syria: Where the war stands now

FreedomHouse (CC)

FreedomHouse (CC)

The Obama administration has stated that they will send weapons to the rebels in Syria at this point, regardless of what the citizens in the U.S. or Syria think. And there isn’t a great deal of support for this action, in fact, it appears that even the recipients of the assistance are not wanting it. According to CNN:

If the outside world was excited about a U.S. retaliatory plan for the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons against rebels, the families in the capital’s old Mezzah neighborhood struck a tone in utter contrast.

“America is inventing stories about chemical weapons,” one man told CNN’s Fred Pleitgen. “The Syrian government never used chemical weapons. The rebels have used them, not the government. So they are inventing stories because our army is winning.”

Another man, also shopping for household staples, said the U.S. action won’t make a difference. The government will prevail in the civil war, he asserted.

The intervention is in the wake of reports that the Assad regime is using chemical weapons against its own citizens. But, there remain reports that this simply isn’t the case on the ground. As Al Jazeera reports:

“The White House has issued a statement full of lies about the use of chemical weapons in Syria, based on fabricated information,” a statement issued on Friday by the Syrian Foreign Ministry said.

“The United States is using cheap tactics to justify President Barack Obama’s decision to arm the Syrian opposition,” it said.

Russia, a staunch ally of the Syrian government, also disputed the US charge on Friday.

President Vladimir Putin’s foreign affairs adviser, Yuri Ushakov, told reporters that the information provided by US officials to Russia “didn’t look convincing”.

Russian officials are also not supporting U.S. plans for a no-fly zone over Syria.

“There have been leaks from Western media regarding the serious consideration to create a no-fly zone over Syria through the deployment of Patriot anti-aircraft missiles and F-16 jets in Jordan,” said Mr [Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei] Lavrov, speaking at a joint news conference in Moscow with his Italian counterpart.

“You don’t have to be a great expert to understand that this will violate international law,” he said.

Mr Lavrov also said evidence presented by the US of chemical weapons use in Syria apparently did not meet reliability criteria set out by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

The three-year-long conflict in Syria has been increasingly involving neighboring nations, and Hezbollah leaders have stated that they do not intend to back down in the conflict. This does not bode well for any plans that the U.S. could have for assisting the Syrian rebels – without taking into account arguments from within the U.S. that getting involved at this point would only be giving weapons to existing enemies of the U.S. There is no secret that Al Qaeda has been making in-roads in the Syrian resistance. Add to that it appears that even Israel does not foresee a stable nation in Syria with or without Assad, there seem to be very few, if any, redeeming factors to the U.S. stepping in any more than it has already.

Benghazi: Progressives Rewrite History in Real Time

If there was ever a moment in time when the American people could collectively glean knowledge from a “teachable moment,” the Obama Administration’s handling of the al Qaeda-related attacks on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya is surely one. From the moment the public became aware of what can only be perceived as an act of war, perpetrated at the hands of an enemy that has officially declared war on the United States and the West, the Obama Administration – Progressives one and all – have engaged in one of their favorite tactics of political opportunism: re-writing history. In this instance, they are doing it in real time; right in front of our faces.

From the moment US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice took to the airwaves to insist that the attacks that took the lives of a US Ambassador and three of his colleagues were, in fact, not a coordinated and planned terrorist assault of a US target of interest, but, rather, a “spontaneous” uprising turned violent, spurred by a third-rate video that literally no one had ever seen, the American people were being subjected to fact manipulation for political purposes. With an election coming up, a terrorist attack did not fit the Obama Campaign’s narrative that, “Osama bin Laden is dead and al Qaeda is on the run.” If the al Qaeda was on the run on September 11, 2012, it was running forward, bayonets fixed, with death in their eyes.

But re-writing history is nothing new to the Progressive Movement. During the time of Woodrow Wilson, Progressives perfected the art of propaganda to such an extent that many in the fascist  movements of Europe – Hitler, the hierarchy of the Nazi Party and even Italy’s Mussolini – took notice; impressed at the effectiveness and results achieved by Wilson’s Administration.

In Liberal Fascism, Jonah Goldberg writes:

“Under President Wilson, progressives perfected the art of government propaganda. Wilson appointed the journalist and former muckraker George Creel to head the Committee on Public Information (CPI), the first modern ministry for propaganda in the Western world. Thus empowered, Creel methodically assembled an army of nearly 100,000 ‘Four Minute Men,’ each trained by the CPI to deliver, at a moment’s notice, four-minute propaganda speeches at town meetings or any other public venues where they might be heard. In 1917–18 alone, these operatives delivered some 7.55 million speeches in 5,200 communities.

“In addition, the CPI produced – with taxpayer dollars – millions of posters, buttons, and pamphlets bearing pro-Wilson, Progressive messages. The CPI’s nearly 100 pamphlets were distributed to approximately 75 million people. ‘It was a fight for the minds of men, for the “conquest of their convictions,” and the battle line ran through every home in every country,’ Creel later recalled…

“The public-relations pioneer Edward Bernays learned the science of what he termed ‘the conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses’ during his time on Creel’s committee.”

To that end, it could be argued that Barack Obama’s entire life story is a product of decades of propaganda perfection. From Dreams From My Father to The Audacity of Hope, Mr. Obama’s entire life’s story has been very carefully crafted to present a myth rather than a man; a story rather than a life; an illusion instead of a person; an idea rather than reality. But I digress…

With UN Ambassador Rice’s advancement of the narrative that it was a protest over an inconsequential and poorly made film that served at the genesis for the murders of Ambassador Stevens and his colleagues, the spin of a propaganda machine meant to protect the Obama presidency began. CIA talking points used in a briefing to Obama Administration officials by the Director of National Intelligence were revised no less than two times in less than 24-hours – from 231 words that included references to jihadists and al Qaeda to 91 words that completely expunged all reference to radical Islamist participation, planning or premeditation.

And then the propaganda machine began to hum. From Ambassador Rice to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to high-ranking officials at the Pentagon and CIA, to President Obama himself, the story – the talking points – were so succinctly crafted and choreographed that they could have been loaded into a teleprompter. Well-rehearsed and with authoritative style, each of these political operatives delivered the approved talking points text with conviction, insisting that they, too, were disgusted by the Islamophobic nature of the incendiary video. Mrs. Clinton even went so far as to look the father of slain former-Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods in the eye and say, “We will make sure the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.”

Of course, the light of the truth is shining on the facts of this story thanks to many in the new media, talk radio and FOX News, three information outlets routinely lambasted as “bias” and “right-wing” by the Progressive Movement’s many “useful idiots,” both in the mainstream media and the special interest community. And those facts, as they present, depict a much different reality – a much more truthful accounting – of the circumstances surrounding the slaughter in Benghazi. Ambassador Stevens and his colleagues were abandoned; left to fend for themselves and die in a foreign land so that an election could be won.

An equally disturbing truth, albeit not as lethal, is the fact that many serving in the highest elected offices in the United States; the highest offices in the Executive Branch as well as the Legislative Branch, left these people to die because of their political aspirations; so emboldened by their total commitment to a socio-political ideology, so cripplingly devoted to attaining the power that only winning elections can afford, that they blatantly and freely deceive the American people, even about lethal attacks on our diplomats; deadly attacks against our country.

Perhaps even more disturbing is the very real fact that many, if not all, of the people who voted for Mr. Obama in 2012 were led to incorporate the “Obama Campaign Islamophobic film narrative” into their decisions at the ballot box.

The facts being what they are, it cannot be denied that the decision to deceive the American people, the decision to flagrantly lie to the American people – and, in fact, the decision to abandon four Americans as they fought for their very lives – was a decision based on a political motive. The CIA talking points on the slaughter in Benghazi were purposely and grotesquely altered in an effort to deceive the voting public into believing the deadly events of September 11, 2012, were inconsequential to the 2012 Presidential Election; that everything that could have been done to save the lives of four Americans in the service of their country was done; that the hellfire that rained down on Ambassador Christopher Stevens, US Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith, and former-Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods was the result of “common over-reactionary” violence associated with the hurt feelings of Islamofascists to which the Obama Administration had no recourse.

The decision to lie to the American people about the act of war that happened in Benghazi, Libya, on September 12, 2012, was made to mask the weak and conciliatory foreign policy of a president whose only real-life prerequisite experience for the highest office in the land was that of Chicago community organizer – not a constitutional scholar, not an exceptional legal mind, not a well-seasoned elected public servant, but a failed Chicago Progressive community organizer.

In the book, Fabian Freeway, Rose L. Martin explains the agenda mindset of the founders of the Fabian Socialist Movement, the very movement that would give birth to today’s Progressive Movement. Incidentally, among the founding members of this arrogant and totalitarian movement: George Bernard Shaw:

“From the outset, the nine young men and women who remained to found the Fabian Society had grandiose plans. Quite simply, they wanted to change the world through a species of propaganda termed ‘education,’ which would lead to political action. To a rather astonishing degree they have been successful…”

“Changing the world through a species of propaganda termed ‘education’.” Given the fact that the same people who lied to the American people about the slaughter in Benghazi are the very people in control of our public education system, I would have to say I have never read more chilling words.

When the people we elect to public office are caught lying there should be consequences; a price paid for the cost of the deception. Keeping in mind that the four Americans who died in the slaughter of Benghazi – whose last moments on this earth must have been hopelessly tormenting – have already paid the ultimate price in the service of their country, it is fair to say that, so far, the only price Mr. Obama has been made to pay for his deadly political opportunism is to be re-elected to the Presidency on the wings of a lie.

I’m sure he’ll lose sleep over it.

Saudi that was questioned after bombing – deported

On the day of the Boston Marathon bombing, there was talk of a suspect, then person of interest – Abdul Rahman Ali al-Harbi. Now, that Saudi man is no longer on considered as a potential bomber, and has apparently been deported. His departure is markedly like how the Bin Laden family members were removed from U.S. soil shortly after the attacks on 9/11. Jim Robbins at rare.us drew attention to this, and the following video offered by Jim Hoft at the Gateway Pundit.

This administration seems to be more concerned with staying in the good graces of Saudi Arabia, instead of finding out the truth about what happened on Monday. They have the advantage of not having to battle with many of the members of the media over issues like this, as they have long ago abandoned their role as watch-dogs over government. However, it has been reported by Walid Shoebat that this “innocent Saudi” apparently comes from a clan with many Al Qaeda members. By his count, there are no less than 11 active or detained known terrorists in the Harbi clan. Given the past history of Saudi Arabia protecting its own illustrated by Shoebat, even if it would be found later that this man actually did have a hand in the attack, it’s unlikely he will ever face justice on U.S. soil – unless he happens to be an innocent by-stander once again.

Is Sarah Palin’s “Shuck and Jive” Obama Comment Racist

Liberals have double standard with “Shuck and Jive” phrase used by Sarah Palin for President Obama

This week former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin penned an article on Facebook with the title “Obama’s Shuck and Jive Ends With Benghazi Lies,” This has set off a firestorm of criticism throughout the liberal punditry world.  MNBC’s Chris Matthews has railed against Palin, calling her comments of having “a particular ethnic connection” and that she aimed “to throw it at the president as an ethnic shot is pretty blatant.”

Palin’s use of a phrase which has a clear connection to negative stereotypical behavior that was used against black people is not open to debate.  The context in which it was used demonstrates more of unfamiliarity with history than it seems to have with racist intent.  There is a serious question that is still left on the table unanswered.   Should Chris Matthews and other liberals who are quite familiar with its historical intent, context as well as usage, receive a free pass when they have used the phrase on several occasions without similar howls of protest.

What about President Obama’s own White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, who used the phrase last year in September 2011?  In talking to the press corps at the beginning of a White House briefing, he stated, “Sorry. I’m going to shuck and jive! Time to shuck and jive.”  So America gets it, only certain people can say it. Where was the liberal rap on the knuckles for insulting black people or his boss?

In fact, Chris Matthews the self appointed defender of the liberal faith used the phrase in 2010 when fellow MSNBC pundit Rachel Maddow was discussing her ratings driven trip to Afghanistan.  Matthews reportedly asked Maddow, “What has it been like, as you shuck and jive, hang out with the men over there, the women over there, in uniform risking their lives every day?”

Did Matthews become suddenly affected with “Obamnesia,” the known malady which infects liberals’ with sudden outbursts of hypocrisy and a temporary loss of liberal fictional talking points?  Matthews clearly had a strong case of this.  Yet, where was the outcry from the defenders of the liberal faith?  Was Matthews hoping that Maddow would discuss how she found proud black soldiers risking their lives, engaging in being foot shuffling’ Negros?

What about New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who while New York Attorney General, in 2008 targeted democrat presidential candidate U.S. Senator Barack Obama for his all too frequent side stepping of the facts?  Out of frustration, Cuomo blasted Obama in a radio interview by stating, “You can’t shuck and jive at a press conference!

Where were the liberal siren and alarm bells in 2008?  Where was Chris Matthew’s denunciation or even Rev. Jesse Jackson, or the other liberal pundits?  Meanwhile, some of the liberal cleanup crew likened Cuomo’s comments to a boxer who was “bobbing and weaving” around the facts.  So was it racist or was it inarticulate?

The plain truth of the matter is that the phrase is a phrase that has no place in American discussion. Yet it should serve as a reminder that beneath the comments of a Governor Cuomo or a Sarah Palin when referring to the ever evasive bobbing and weaving conduct of a presidential candidate Obama or a President Obama, his lies have consequences. His lies have purposely covered up true facts about the murders of 4 innocent Americans in Benghazi.

America and the world should not only be angry, but it should be outraged that the liberal media journalists and self appointed pundit fact checkers did not do their job in 2008.  They should have dug deeper into the content of what New York Attorney General Cuomo was referring to about Obama’s well honed evasive nature to dodge facts about his racist minister, his birth records, his college application, college records and even his true record of accomplishment in Chicago.

The true bottom line in this made up racial campaign issue, is that America may have actually voted for a Manchurian-style socialist candidate, who charmed the mainstream liberal press into white guilt. So one has to still ask the question, was it racist that Sarah Palin used the phrase “Shuck and Jive”, when angered that a president mangles the truth, and subverts the legacy of four proud Americans who died in Benghazi?

The truth is that this phrase did not kill Americans. 

The truth is that a president black or white who covers up the truth about what he knew, when he knew it and what his administration did not do to prevent is more important than an archaic phrase.

The true racism is how an American mainstream media can keep giving a president of the United States an affirmative action-type break and pretend Americans in Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Colorado or anyone else cannot tell the truth about his lies.

The real racism is that the media protected this man of color, because they did not do their job to seek the truth when it was more convenient to believe Obama’s fiction.  Four Americans were murdered and on November 6th President Obama must answer for it.

Let me know what you think ( Click ) 

UPDATE: Clinton assembles legal defense team

ABC News reports on 9/20/12 that Clinton was unaware of al Qaeda link to attack
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/hillary-clinton-info-amb-chris-stevens-al-qaeda/story?id=17282653#.UIgHn46xpVg

After weeks of administration officials blaming an anti-Islamic YouTube video for the attacks on the US consulate in Benghazi, new documents obtained by multiple news outlets now prove beyond doubt that Secretary Hillary Clinton was aware of the situation within 2 short hours of the onset of weapons fire on the consulate.

Shortly after 4:00PM on September 11, 2012, emails from the consulate detailing the extreme nature of the attack were sent to some 200+ intelligence, State Department and White House officials, including the Situation Room. By 6:07PM, the email communications clearly indicated that Al Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility for the attack.

Email addresses indicate that without doubt that @state.gov (State Department) and @nss.EOP.gov (Executive Office of the President) received the communications. Also included in the “send to” line are the FBI, the Director of National Intelligence and a person at the Defense Department.

New reports out this morning show that Secretary of State Clinton assembled a legal team to be prepared for any fallout with the Obama administration that would attempt to place blame on the Secretary.

In the weeks following the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Secretary Clinton and others in the administration pushed the narrative that a YouTube video prompted riots that got out of control for the cause of the attack. Clinton and President Obama stood side by side when addressing the nation condemning the video and blaming an American citizen for the deaths of the ambassador, 2 US marines and another American. The president spoke to the UN, appeared on The View and David Letterman shows and gave campaign speeches that continued to push that narrative for weeks after the attack. On September 28, 2012, Press Secretary Jay Carney finally told media that there was “no doubt that [the attack] was an act of terror.”

To read more about the latest Benghazi bombshell click here.

President Obama: Jihad Your Chance to Win the Election

Moslems commemorate 9/11 in their special way.

The term for Christians and other non–Moslems living in Islamic countries is “dhimmi.” Think of it as Jim Crow with a turban. Think of it as Jim Crow right now.

According to Mitchell Bard, dhimmis in Islamic lands “on pain of death, were forbidden to mock or criticize the Koran, Islam or Muhammad, to proselytize among Moslems or to touch a Moslem woman.”

Dhimmis were forbidden to hold public office, serve in the armed forces or own weapons. Non–Moslems cannot build synagogues or churches taller than mosques, construct houses taller than those of Moslems or drink wine in public, which helps to explain Donald Trump’s absence.

A dhimmi’s testimony in court was worthless, which meant attacking dhimmis was penalty–free for Moslems, just like today.

But one doesn’t have to live in the Middle East to be a dhimmi. You could be the President of the United States and impose dhimmitude on an entire nation.

Obama orders our soldiers to wear white gloves when touching the Koran (no word on whether the troops are required to suit up before touching the Bible or Bagvad Gita) and avoid drinking or eating in front of Moslems during their Ramadan fast.

His administration can insist there is no nexus between Islam and terrorism; and collaborate with Muslim Brotherhood front groups here at home.

And the President can treat the murder of our Libyan ambassador and an attack on our embassy in Egypt as simply a random act in response to provocation from US citizens.

In full dhimmi mode the embassy in Cairo and Sec. of State Hillary Clinton scrambled to burn the Constitution in a futile effort to placate readers of the Koran. “The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims…” the statement read. “We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”

The death of the ambassador presented a problem for the State Department since he was important, and not a grunt in Afghanistan. They couldn’t blame his death on asking to see photos of a Moslem’s wife and kids, like the military does in “green on blue” attacks in Kabul.

So Hillary “strongly condemned the attack” and asked the same Libyans who allowed the murder to provide additional protection for the rubble.

An attack on an embassy or the murder of an ambassador is not a law enforcement problem. It’s an act of war. The proper response is not a hand–wringing statement and a eulogy for Ambassador Chris Stevens.

That would be like FDR — Obama’s hero — issuing a statement after Pearl Harbor that saluted the dead, praised them for their public service and failed to mention the attack by Japan.

The proper response to an act of war is a demand the perpetrators be handed over immediately.

And until then, the US 6th fleet should blockade Libyan ports and institute a no–fly zone over every airport. In the case of Egypt, the administration should end discussions on forgiving its $1 billion debt and Egypt should not get a penny of the $1.5 billion in aid until rioters who violated US sovereignty are turned over.

(On second thought, keep the rioters. Since they crossed an international border while invading our embassy, this administration might feel relieved to finally encounter illegals that don’t speak Spanish. There’s a real possibility Janet Incompetano would offer rioters a green card and a free college education.)

Unfortunately, none of this will happen. This weak, feckless, incompetent excuse for a President puts a higher priority on making sure the Pentagon allows homosexuals in military uniform to march in “gay pride” parades than he does in protecting Americans and embassies overseas on the anniversary of 9/11.

Instead the Cairo embassy apologetically announced there would be no visa services on Wednesday due to clean up from a previously unplanned al Qaeda festival.

Any psychologist will tell you successful behavior is learned behavior and since 1979 Moslems have learned attacking a US embassy is penalty–free and gives the attackers plenty of cachet with the hijab hotties.

One of the Islamists at the embassy storming explained, “This is a very simple reaction to harming our prophet.” So why can’t the United States have a very simple reaction to harming our embassy and our citizens?

A good friend of mine observed that if Obama had ordered Marines in Cairo to fire when the rioters crossed the wall, he would have won the election yesterday. Fortunately for Mitt Romney, that dhimmi knows his place.

A New Attitude Yes, More Confidence? No

The current Oval Office occupant has claimed, and while speaking to the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Reno continued to claim that under his stewardship people have a new attitude towards and more confidence in America.

“Four years ago, I stood before you at a time of great challenge for our nation. We were engaged in two wars.  Al Qaeda was entrenched in their safe havens in Pakistan.  Many of our alliances were frayed.  Our standing in the world had suffered.  We were in the worst recession of our lifetimes.  Around the world, some questioned whether the United States still had the capacity to lead.  Because we’re leading around the world, people have a new attitude toward America.  There’s more confidence in our leadership.  We see it everywhere we go.”

“So, four years ago, I made you a promise.  I pledged to take the fight to our enemies, and renew our leadership in the world.  As President, that’s what I’ve done.  And as you reflect on recent years, as we look ahead to the challenges we face as a nation and the leadership that’s required, you don’t just have my words, you have my deeds.  You have my track record. You have the promises I’ve made and the promises that I’ve kept,” he said.

http://tinyurl.com/czzxhck

Do the promises you’ve kept include the over $1 trillion in pending defense cuts, which will lead to Army, Air Force and Marine Corps troop levels being reduced by tens of thousands?  Does this qualify as instilling more confidence in American leadership?

Do they include an embarrassingly incoherent strategy for how to engage the Arab Spring?  Libya, Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen are now heavily influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood and Syria appears to be not far behind.

Did the promises you made include blaming Israel, not the Palestinians, for the absence of peace between them?  Are you including snubbing and humiliating Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu?

Neither Iran nor North Korea have been deterred or dissuaded from further pursuit of nuclear weapons.  They both remain belligerent towards other countries in their regions.  Are these facts included on your list of promises kept?

Does the list of confidence inspiring deeds include your decision to leave Iraq’s fate twisting in the wind by pulling out prematurely?   Does it include failing to negotiate a status-of-forces agreement with Iraqi Prime Minister al-Malik? How about leaving a power vacuum certain to delight Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iran’s Mullahs?

Is ratification of the New START treaty with Russia, one that weakens America’s missile-defense capabilities included in your calculations?

How about Senator Dianne Feinstein stating that national security leaks came from the White House: “I think the White House has to understand that some of this is coming from its ranks. I don’t know specifically where, but I think they have to begin to understand that and do something about it.”

Is your ongoing failure to secure America’s borders, allowing illegal aliens to continue pouring into the United States while Mexican drug-cartel violence spins out of control on your list of inspirational achievements?

Are you including your decision to state a hard timeline for American troop withdrawal from Afghanistan that, if kept allows Al Qaeda and the Taliban to wait America out?

Did you include sending a bust of Winston Churchill, a gift from Britain to America as sign of solidarity with the United States in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington back to the British Embassy?

How about your refusal back in 2010 to meet with then Prime Minister Gordon Brown after no less than five requests, further undermining America’s long time special relationship with Great Britain?

The list could go on.

It is fair to say that the White House has instilled around the world a new attitude towards the United States.  To say that it has created a climate of new confidence in American leadership is not aligned with the facts revealed by a review of the administration’s foreign policy actions.  Claims that the White House has renewed America’s leadership in the world are nothing more than wishful thinking and empty campaign rhetoric.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/a-new-attitude-yes-more-confidence-no/

America’s Destructive Lack of Realism

Last winter, when I heard John McCain drummed up support to bomb Syria, it makes me wonder if the 535 members in Washington have dementia.  We already had an unnecessary intervention in Libya, we’ve mostly concluded our business with Iraq, and Afghanistan is crumbling.  In a time where Americans are anything BUT enthusiastic or willing to become involved in another nation’s affairs, we must first ask, as George Will has, how many wars do we want to fight.

I was an unabashed neoconservative who supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq until I saw, as William F. Buckley aptly pointed out, how this movement grossly underestimates American power.  This was evident in the negligence in the post-war Iraqi reconstruction operations that followed the fall of Saddam Hussein’s government. The planning of the entire reconstruction effort, outlined in National Security Presidential Directive 24 issued in January 2003, gave the Department of Defense complete authority over the post-war operations.  It’s absurd.  Rebuilding Iraq into a modern, free market democracy in three months or less.  No wonder chaos ensued.  This whole notion of liberal democracy proliferating throughout the Middle East, in a region with no historical precedent of such values, is mind numbingly naive.

Even with our involvement winding down in Iraq, it appears the only winner is Iran since we’ve weakened the only nation in the region to curb its growing influence.  The resilience of the new democracy in Iraq and its disposition towards the United States in the future remains to be seen.  However, Syria is still holding out from the so-called “Arab Spring,” Iran still has nuclear ambitions, which would set off a regional arms race, and Egypt has fallen prey to the radical Muslim Brotherhood after we threw our good friend, Hosni Mubarak, under the bus in the hopes that a vibrant democracy will emerge there. Is this our dividend after spending $700 billion in Iraq?  Was this the best use of American political and military resources?

America’s destructive lack a realism is becoming disastrously expensive and straining our military.  Afghanistan and Iraq has cost us a whopping $1.2 trillion dollars in war expenditures.  We could be facing a $4-6 trillion dollar price tag when this whole ordeal is over.  We need to reexamine our financial stability and national interest for future engagements.

Case in point, Libya had nothing to do with American interests.  We do not receive oil from Libya. We don’t have diplomatic relations with Libya.  It was a civil war that was none of our business in a tribal society whose various clans hated Qaddafi more than each, hence the fragile display of national unity.  Like in Iraq, civil institutions were derived from one man and his family creating a power vacuum that will lead to more bloodshed.  The various militias refuse to disarmand the eastern half of the country has declared autonomy.  Did we really stop a slaughter? I feel more bloodshed will ensue because of our reckless engagement in their affairs.

People die in war, especially in the brutal theater of civil war.  Nevertheless, it doesn’t mean it’s our business. Especially when we have become involved in tribal societies before with little success.  We realists do not deny the existence of moral truths and principles, but when applied in the anarchic field of international relations, it is inherently dangerous.  It thrusts a nation, whose only purpose is to survive, into entanglements that are diplomatically obtuse, detrimental to its interests, and leads to prolonging the conflict.

If Qaddafi had squashed the insurrectionists in Benghazi, it would have been over, but we intervened, allied ourselves with rebel elements affiliated with al-Qaeda, and escalated the civil war leading to more deaths. In Somalia, our intervention culminated in the infamous Black Hawk Down incident, despite the fact it was hopeless from the start. There was no government to open up a diplomatic channel, no infrastructure, and clan ties that prevented national unity.  We lost nineteen American soldiers to help feed people in a failed state. A tragic waste of American resources.

The era of nation-building and humanitarian interventions need to end.   If our criteria for involvement is humanitarian based, we will be in a perpetual state of war.  The essence of nation-building, as George Will rightly said on Charlie Rose, is oxymoronic since it’s an organic entity that take generations to perfect.  Just because American marines are on the ground, doesn’t mean the maturation process will be accelerated.  In all, these attempts at social engineering are textbook cases of the irresponsible and arduous tasks that have drained American power over the past decade.  I’m thankful that a growing consensus in this country is starting to view such ventures as nonsensical.  It’s simply not worth the cost.

The Cost of Bargaining with Al Qaeda

Imagine a street in a city in Pakistan. There is a marketplace nearby, and there are women and children going about their daily business, buying food and other goods. The only arguments are between customers and vendors, but they are not mean-spirited – just the typical bargaining on prices. Suddenly, a bomb goes off, and as the smoke clears, the marketplace is leveled. Body parts litter the ground, and screams replace the sound of the blast. The lucky ones that were only wounded slightly are seen wandering, covered in blood, looking for friends and family members in the rubble.

Unfortunately, that is part of life in Pakistan. We have seen it countless times on news clips. Sometimes one radical organization or another claims responsibility, sometimes not. On rare occasions, it is not the result of a bomb, but of an errant missile from a drone operated by the U.S. military. But that is assuming that the marketplace is truthfully only dealing in produce and household goods – it is silly to assume that weapons never make it to largely civilian marketplaces, making them a military target. Regardless, it is unlikely that the U.S. government would tell the truth anyway, because it doesn’t make the situation any better to do so. If anything, it would probably be worse if terrorists knew that the U.S. was aware of how they move weapons, so it’s better to call it a mistake, and offer a boilerplate apology.

The war on terror started in Afghanistan, and has shifted at least in part to Pakistan for obvious reasons – al-Qaeda has migrated there. It is no surprise that as the trial of five 9/11 conspirators begins at Guantanamo Bay, there is a video released of an American captive of Al Qaeda begging Obama for the release of terrorists in custody – presumably including the ones on trial.

I would like to say that I am certain that the President is preparing a letter of condolence for the wife of Warren Weinstein, instead of actually considering bargaining for his release. But given the fact that the trial of the 9/11 conspirators was literally hijacked by the defendants, turning what should have been a short arraignment hearing into a day-long affair, I’m not so sure. In the effort to be seen by the world as the better party in these proceedings, the U.S. is catering to the defendants. The unfortunate result will be depicting the U.S. yet again as the weaker party, at least to those in the Islamic world.

While it would be counterproductive to stoop to the point of engaging in intentional bombings of civilians abroad, and summarily executing 9/11 terrorists, it is equally harmful to bend over backwards to accommodate those defendants. The female defense attorney that attended the hearing wearing the hijab should be censured, and if she still insists on appeasing her client in that regard, she should be removed and replaced either with a male, or a female that will not do the same. It may seem petty, but it is important. To those defendants, her actions show that she acknowledges her “place” in their world. They are not entitled to that, by any stretch of the imagination.

Back to Weinstein, if he is still alive, it is insane to assume that he will ever be recovered alive. Given his health problems, it is quite possible that he is already dead. If he isn’t, there is no reason to think that al-Qaeda would release him regardless of what the U.S. would do. On the contrary, it is in al-Qaeda’s best interest to kill him on video, and release that footage after detainees had been released, to further prove their supremacy over the “weak” Americans. No matter how sad it may be, one American life is not worth giving in to al-Qaeda, period. Such bargaining would only serve to strengthen the resolve of terrorists, and most likely lead to more American deaths from future attacks.

Contrary to what the U.S. has hoped, killing leadership of al-Qaeda has not lessened the threat from the organization significantly enough to render it irrelevant. Pakistan is not a reliable U.S. ally in combating al-Qaeda, and it is foolish to think that it will become one. Without the aid of that nation, putting an end to the terrorist organization once and for all is virtually impossible. The mere fact that there is still a U.S. military presence in the region is fuel for Islamic terrorist organizations in general, so attempts to eradicate radicals is necessarily leading to the creation of more radicals. It has been argued ad nauseum whether or not “enhanced interrogation techniques” are torture, and more importantly whether or not that has lead to more potential members of organizations like al-Qaeda, hell bent on waging war on America.

FDNY Ground Zero

slagheap (CC)


Now, with the circus of a trial at Guantanamo Bay, it can be argued that the U.S. really has lost sight of what this is really about. Bargaining for peace with the Taliban includes releasing high level prisoners, and all the U.S. wants in return is a pledge that these detainees will not fight again. That is simply “peace at any cost”, and should be an indication that it is time for the U.S. to disentangle itself from the region. The focus should be on trying and punishing the 9/11 conspirators we have in hand. There is no real option for lasting peace in that region, especially not with any level of Western intervention. That intervention is arguably what lead to 9/11 in the first place. We cannot bargain our way to anything other than making ourselves look weak to those that have a deep-seated desire to destroy us. Catering to the enemy is a deadly game that we need to stop playing. If the next trial session at Guantanamo Bay goes as this first one, we have lost. We need to remember what this is about. Anyone that wants to sympathize with these defendants should be forced to watch the most graphic footage available of what happened on 9/11. They should be forced to watch people jumping from the towers to their deaths, over and over again. That is what these men did. That is what they must be held accountable for. We owe them nothing, but we are kind enough to give them their day in court. Get on with the trial, remove the defendants if they will not respect the court, reach a verdict, and put an end to this. Just by having a trial at all, we have taken the higher ground. That is more than enough.

Crossposted at Goldwater Gal.

New York Bomber Suspect Arrest Prompts Warning

BOSTON, Nov. 21, 2011  — “The recent arrest of alleged New York bomber Jose Pimenthal underscores the need for all of us to be vigilant during the Thanksgiving travel rush,” warns antiterrorism expert Todd McGhee who pioneered new security measures at Logan Airport, post 9/11 and later co-founded Protecting the Homeland Innovations, LLC in Braintree, Mass.

“Warning signs of a lone-wolf terrorist include hanging back when everyone is in a rush, appearing trancelike or spouting ideology. Tune into your surroundings instead of your iPod to pick up on out-of-step behaviors that could mean trouble,” says McGhee.

On Sunday, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced the arrest of Jose Pimentel of Manhattan, “a 27-year-old Al Qaeda sympathizer” who he said was motivated by propaganda and planned to harm returning U.S. troops.

“If a stranger has to think about answering a simple questions like, ‘Are you visiting your family?’ it’s a sign of trouble,” says McGhee, adding, “This is what we teach security professionals to look for – subconscious responses people cannot hide. It’s a like a tell in a poker player.”

“Airport security is getting better, but the public must be aware of what to watch for and how to respond,” says McGhee. McGhee’s PHI (www.phitraining.com) provides antiterrorist training to security professionals at TSA, AMTRAK, NYPD and other agencies as well as public awareness campaigns.

“Pay attention to the ebb and flow of human activity in airports, rail stations and bus terminals to become more aware of behaviors that are out of step with the crowd. If you sense a threat go with your instincts. Move away and alert the nearest security professional or a gate agent. Do not try to detain the individual yourself. Your safety comes first,” says McGhee.

McGhee adds, “Outside the boarding gates, airports are as public as city streets where anybody up to no good can hang out. Situational awareness helps to keep us safe from belligerent drunks, sexual predators, scammers and other troublemakers as well as terrorists.”

Rep. Ron Paul: Sanctions on Iran are "an act of war"

Rep. Ron Paul doesn’t get much time at the game show-style Republican debates to explain his policy views. Most of the questions he’s gotten center on his domestic policy which line up with a large portion of the Conservative base.

On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace took a few minutes to have Rep. Paul tell voters how he would shape American foreign policy – specifically on Iran.

Keep listening past the Iran segment and you’ll also get to hear his thoughts on a third party candidacy.

« Older Entries