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.

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.

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 6^th President Obama must answer for it.

Let me know what you think ( Click ) 

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.

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 6^th 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.

“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/

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.

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.

slagheap (CC)

Crossposted at Goldwater Gal.

“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.”

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.

Many in the State and Defense departments wanted to extended the presence of troops (albeit a small amount) into the next year, but insisted that they continue to enjoy immunity from prosecution in Iraq.  This was rejected by the Iraqi government and Prime Minister al-Maliqi.

The announcing of the timetable for withdrawal raises questions of whether the Iraqi military and police forces are fully prepared to defend the fledgling freedom again Al-Qaeda and other insurrectionist groups.  Anti-democratic forces are likely to take advantage of the deadline to launch a new offensive in the country.  Only time will see if Iraq is ready to stand on its own two feet.

Free missiles in Libya for terrorists

As many as 20,000 shoulder-fired portable heat-seeking missiles are unaccounted for in Libya today, as the Obama Administration is caught flat-footed and left scrambling to do damage control in a very dangerous situation that they have had a big hand in creating. In their zealousness to promote the Arab Spring [supposed] Democracy uprisings in Libya, the Obama administration is shown to be eager to bomb first and deal with dangerous consequences later in this debacle. In the rush to help oust the long-time tyrant and oppressive dictator Moammar Gadhafi, numerous stockpiles of these missiles have been left unguarded and have already in fact, been carted off by who knows what terrorist groups and individuals by simply pulling up and loading them into vehicles. The following ABC News video describes the dangers of not securing these weapons depots, BEFORE removing the Libyan military that was guarding them:</p

These 4 to 5 foot long, portable heat-seeking missiles shown in the above video could now be used against our military aircraft in Iraq, Afghanistan and across the globe, and were basically left free for the taking in Libya. From the ABC News report, we see that this dangerous situation was brought to the Obama Administration’s attention over 6 months ago:

Peter Bouckaert of Human Rights Watch first warned about the problem after a trip to Libya six months ago. He took pictures of pickup truckloads of the missiles being carted off during another trip just a few weeks ago.

These missiles are deadly from distances up to two miles and do not have to actually be aimed, as they zoom in on an aircraft’s engine heat, and it also doesn’t take a lot of training to fire one. Basically put it on your shoulder and point it in the direction of any aircraft, and the missile will track the aircraft, strike it, and then explode.

Mr. Bouckaert was right there in Libya taking pictures of these missiles, and stated: “I myself could have removed several hundred if I wanted to, and people can literally drive up with pickup trucks or even 18 wheelers and take away whatever they want,” said Bouckaert, HRW’s emergencies director. “Every time I arrive at one of these weapons facilities, the first thing we notice going missing is the surface-to-air missiles.”

Former White House counter-terror adviser Richard Clarke stated, “I think the probability of al Qaeda being able to smuggle some of the stinger-like missiles out of Libya is probably pretty high,”

Recently we have seen The fast and Furious gunrunning scandal in which the DHS, ATF and other government agencies enabled the sale of assault weapons to drug cartels resulting in hundreds of murders on both sides of our Southern border, The Solyndra pay-for-play solar company scam where a good portion of half a billion taxpayer dollars have basically been shuffled into Democratic campaign coffers, and now we have the U.S. government enabling al Qaeda and any other anti-American maniac to acquire up to 20k portable anti-aircraft missiles. Meanwhile the ignorant sheep now known as Obama-supporters following his recent west coast taxpayer-funded campaign trip keep on screaming… Four more years, four more years!   Lovely.

I don’t write this as apologetics for Ron Paul, the Cato Institute, the founding fathers, Reason Magazine or any other well known libertarian intellectual cause. Instead, I’m going to use an inherently conservative thought process, the cost-benefit analysis. Liberals hate the cost-benefit analysis because it shows that their government programs to be counter-productive; this is why they often resort to arguing based on emotions and intent. Unfortunately, despite President Bush’s noble intentions, the major engagements of the War on Terror may not pass the cost-benefit test.

We invaded Afghanistan in 2001 to eliminate Al-Qaeda and to topple the country’s acting government, the Taliban. While fighting the enemy, we also helped set up an acting Afghan government. And in 2004 Hamid Karzai was elected president of the country and the US has supported him ever since. However, it has been revealed that Karzai and his family are corrupt and that he perhaps fraudulently won re-election in 2009. The US decided to express its disapproval by sending a troop surge of 30,000 to double down on our efforts of giving him a stable country to govern. Worse yet, its also been learned that Karzai, behind our back, has been in talks with the Taliban and has had diplomatic relations with Iran. But even before Karzai’s corruption became apparent, he still wasn’t exactly our BFF. Karzai frequently threw the US “under the bus” in press conferences and openly supports the farmers there growing Opium poppy despite our requests. Even taking Karzai out of the equation, a cost-benefit analysis must be done (not in this article) on whether or not we should still be fighting in Afghanistan. Former CIA director and current Secretary of Defense Leon Panneta estimated in 2010 that there were no more than 50-100 Al-Qaeda still in the country.

Next we turned to Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a terrible dictator who ended up getting what he deserved, not many Americans on either side of the political aisle would disagree with that. But, as the Iraq war winded down and the US turned into a police force to help stabilize their government, the people at home wondered what the new Iraqi government would look like. While still in its infant stages, details of the new Iraqi government have been disappointing at best. It appears as though Iraq has warmed up to its former hated enemy, Iran. This is particularly bad, because the Iraq-Iran conflict helped to keep Iran in check. This is why in the 1980s we helped supply Iraq with materials to produce chemical/biological weapons; with the idea of them to using the weapons against Iran. Further showing its gratitude towards the US, Iraq recently voted against Saudi Arabia’s proposal to increase oil production at OPEC’s 2011 conference. Seeing nations turn their back on the US after the US had invested large sums of money isn’t particularly unusual, but what makes this different is that the US still has 50,000 soldiers over there. This is a blatant slap in the face.

Worst of all is Libya. If there is something positive to be said of the War in Libya, one could say that its been the least costly of the wars. Despite its comparatively low price tag, Libya could quite possibly have the costliest long term consequences. To clarify, just like Saddam, Muammar Gaddafi is an evil dictator who deserves whatever grisly fate that awaits him. But, the United States went to war for the stated goal of stopping an alleged massacre that never took place, not for “regime change”. Then, in spite of goals which stated otherwise, we stayed until the regime change was complete. Now the question that remains is, “What now? Who are these rebels?”. That answer appears to be an interesting mix of regular citizens who grew tired of their oppressor, radical Islamic insurgents, and long term US ally Al-Qaeda. Wait… no, that’s not right, Al-Qaeda’s goal is to destroy the US and Israel. While the new Libyan constitution hasn’t been written, it was released that Sharia law is anticipated to be the main source of inspiration. If the Muslim Brotherhood’s popularity in Egypt is any indication, the so called “Arab Spring” will not have positive long term effects on the US and it’s allies. Rarely do events have 100% negative consequences without a silver lining, and Libya very well could be one of those times. In life there are disappoints and ideas that backfire, but rarely do you spend money and resources to create a nation whose leadership’s stated goal is to destroy you. Before many marriages that end in divorce go bad, there is usually a blissful honeymoon. Likewise the Libyan rebels started off giving the US a deserved gift, by denying their request to extradite Lockerbie bomber Al-Megrahi.

The Middle East has plenty of hostile countries, some unfriendly indifferent nations, and very few allies. One of those nations considered friendly to the US is Kuwait, particularly after we saved them from Saddam Hussein’s invasion in Desert Storm. Now to Kuwait’s credit, they have repaid us with their support in the UN by voting against us a region-low 67% of the time. More and more on the right, people grow disenfranchised by our foreign involvements. Republican California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher said that behind closed doors, most republicans will admit that Iraq was a mistake. This sentiment briefly gave businessman Donald Trump the affection of some republicans when he considered a presidential run. One of Trump’s main platforms was taking trillions of dollars in oil from Iraq to offset our costs there. The fact that the idea garnered some support among republicans shows that at the very least, they’re willing to admit that the Iraq war didn’t yield desired results; so they feel the need to get something out of it. I agree that in retrospect, knowing what we know now, it was a mistake. But you can’t go around taking nation’s oilfields or anything else for that matter, might doesn’t make right. The equivalent I draw from the people who support the US taking oil from these nations we intervene in is this: Let’s say I cut your grass without me asking. You either try to stop me or passively let it happen. When its done I take some household appliances to compensate myself.

A best case scenario in these countries is that we pay billions yearly for their defense, having them become reliant on us, allowing them to become socialist in nature; all while complaining about our presence and influence. This allows them to become what I like to call “International democrats”. They do nothing to warrant the US taxpayer paying for their defense or fighting for them, yet we do it. What would be better is if we charged them at cost or more for us to protect them, but even then, that’s only a solution if you want to use our military men and women as mercenaries instead of only using them to “protect the US Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic”. Better would be forcing these nations to pay for their own defense, taking them off the government payroll.

In the world there are going to be problems that arise on an international level. Friendly dictators and elected officials alike will lose power or get overthrown from time to time. When a US-friendly regime loses power its one thing, when the US pays great costs in lives and money to create a hostile regime is infinitely worse. Woodrow Wilson’s progressive dream is alive and well today with the goal of “making the world safe for democracy”, championed by republicans (McCain, Graham) and democrats (Lieberman). Creating democracies in a region where the people who make up the electorate despise the US would seem to make the policy mutually exclusive with safety at home.