Tag Archives: terrorism

Politicking the Drones

Predator Drone

“I spent a couple years training soldiers to go and die in Vietnam. I know more names on the wall than ones that didn’t end up in granite from those classrooms. Now, I build things to keep soldiers alive.”

My father said those words more than a few times during my life, when explaining why he worked where he did – he was a systems analyst for a company that made safety equipment. His major projects for the military toward the end of his career involved detecting chemical and biological weapons in the field, and were built for installation on primarily Naval aircraft.

Predator Drone

NOAA imagery: Predator Drone

I knew what my dad did for a living because we would often joke that he had never been introduced to a textbook on basic English Grammar. His writing was atrocious, and it was obvious very early on that I was the absolute opposite. So, he’d write his reports, and hand them to me to cover with red pencil lines and notations. While a great deal of the technical information was way over my head, I did understand that my dad’s work was saving lives of not only Naval personnel, but also many troops on the ground. That was definitely a good thing.

When this whole issue of drones being used to kill Americans overseas came up, I couldn’t help but think of what my father would have said. Of course, being an old Army man, I know he would have been furious at anyone that was suggesting that there is a problem with this. I can almost hear him saying that the real problem isn’t the drones, but the fact that people are granting the title “American” to people that have chosen to engage in terrorist activities against the U.S. He would be furious with our government for not immediately stripping citizenship rights and privileges from Americans that choose to become enemy combatants, by joining terrorist organizations.

And that is what this all boils down to – it is a matter of semantics. It is a misguided notion to consider these people as U.S. citizens anymore. And if they officially weren’t, there wouldn’t be a single word of protest against killing them. So it begs the question, why hasn’t our government set a hard and fast rule that once a U.S. citizen has been identified as a willing participant in a terrorist organization, that person is no longer considered a U.S. citizen? Argue about rights to due process, or whatever you like, but before speaking, consider what would be said if the person in question didn’t happen to be a U.S. citizen at some point.

There is an uncomfortable reality here. First, there is the political situation, and the fact that this policy would have been attacked severely by the left if it had been a Republican president setting it. It’s unfair, but true. However, while it might feel nice to point this out, that righteous indignation is hollow, because as conservatives, we would have been defending this policy on behalf of a president from our side of the aisle. For those that are a little slow on the uptake, that means the problem isn’t with the policy, but with the party affiliation of the president that created it. That doesn’t cut it.

Second, there is a huge contextual issue on the horizon here. Obviously, the use of drones by the U.S. military overseas is something that the people should be able to agree is a good thing. Unmanned aircraft make it possible to save the lives of our military personnel, and no matter which side of the aisle one is on, that should be considered a major asset. The real argument lies in the use of these aircraft over U.S. soil, and rightfully so. With the noted exception of use of drones by our Border Patrol, their use should be highly limited – primarily using them for search and rescue, and perhaps for apprehending a fleeing criminal. Drones should not become “Big Brother’s eye in the sky.” But, in spite of some states and localities choosing to make laws governing the use of drones now, that isn’t the issue at hand. And straight military use over foreign soil should not be a bone of contention.

Bottom line is, fight the fight that’s worth fighting. Stop arguing over the merits (or demerits) of using drones to attack enemy combatants, regardless of their citizenship status. Focus on preventing the misuse of them over U.S. soil – that’s where the real battle will be.

Hagel proving his own inadequacy

chuckhagel

As Washington insiders argue the finer points on the merits (and demerits) of having Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense, the man himself had been running around for years proving that he probably isn’t the best option for the position. His abysmal performance in the confirmation hearings aside, Hagel has been wandering around proving his lack of basic knowledge necessary to do the job for well over a year now.

The American Enterprise Institute blog, AEIdeas aptly pointed out at least one shortcoming when it comes to Hagel’s comprehension of the Defense budget and sequestration cuts on the horizon. AEIdeas points out from a short snippet of a September 2011 interview by Financial Times, that Hagel’s lack of real knowledge of the issues at hand in the Department of Defense, when it comes to spending, is not a new development.

It is true that traditionally defense spending is a sacred cow to conservatives. Any talk of cuts typically garners at best, cynicism – at worst, outright attacks and derision. However, there is fat to be trimmed, and that concept has been explored by at least one blogger at Their Finest Hour. That source is mentioned primarily because of its pro-military stance. But, that is not the sort of cuts that Hagel is referring to, either in his 2011 interview with the Financial Times, or in his confirmation hearing testimony. On the contrary, in both he is showing a sophomoric understanding of the important issues at hand – of balancing budget requirements with maintaining the level of national security this nations needs. And this was not lost on former Press Secretary Robert Gibbs during his appearance on “Meet the Press.”

Hagel is not a an appropriate choice for Secretary of Defense at this point, not only because of his own shortcomings, but also because John Kerry is now taking the post of Secretary of State. These two departments must work hand-in-hand to ensure the safety of American citizens abroad, and provide relatively safe situations for American businesses to expand worldwide. It has come to light that the suicide bomber that attempted to attack the U.S. Embassy in Turkey was known to U.S. authorities, and unlike the Benghazi attack, the administration has come out from the beginning admitting that this was a terrorist attack. But, one has to wonder what Hagel’s ideas for cutting fat at the Pentagon would do to the security overseas that arguably prevented that bomber from breaching even the outer defenses of our Turkish Embassy.

And maintaining the safety of our personnel and business interests abroad is not the only concern our incoming Secretary of Defense will have thanks to the new Secretary of State. With Iran stepping up development of weapons for use against its enemies in the Middle East and beyond, there will be serious issues to address in the Department of Defense. Whether one considers the possibility of Iran making its own fighter jets, or the possibility of them being able to send rockets into space, there are seriously disturbing issues on the horizon when it comes to dealing with Iran going forward. Couple this with their determination to acquire a nuclear weapon, and it is a deadly combination that will require competent leadership in the Department of Defense – not willy-nilly running about talking about the need to cut funding. This is especially important, since the Iranians appear to be dangling a carrot when it comes to talks on nuclear weapons – something Kerry probably will not navigate through well. In this administration, the Department of Defense will play a pivotal role, if only because it will be left to clean up messes made by the Department of State, for one. Hagel cannot handle that, if for no other reason, because he would fail to recognize the need to do it in the first place – at least until there was a significant loss of civilian lives, at home or abroad, to force the issue.

The Climate of Fear & Powerlessness

fear1

fear1In this once free country, we have settled into a “permanent revolution” of non-stop fear and anxiety paralysis,  induced by the mainstream media’s terrorist tactics so that citizens learn to stop standing up for their rights and give in to unlimited government.

We are now pointing at inanimate objects and as amorphous a thing as “the culture” to explain the actions of a single, sick shooter. America is to blame for the miscreants and fluke tragedies of everyday life in a nation of more than 300 million people in one of the largest countries in the world.

Every last individual is to be suspected as a potential criminal, because we have depraved criminals. Every American must be asked to give up his rights, because some don’t know how to responsibly exercise their rights.

Those responsible citizens who believe in such well-accepted things as free speech, the right to adequate self-defense, and a government that spends within our means have all of a sudden become “extreme.” Because of the widespread acceptance of the truism that opinions are subjective, the perspective of what is extreme depends on the mind’s eye of the viewer. There are no objective standards for willful ignoramuses (and that is one reason why conservatives should take seriously the philosophy of Objectivism).

The right wants us to fear others. The left wants us to fear ourselves. What we should fear is the government. The behavior of the media and the government make it apparent that both parties have ulterior motives, and are exploiting tragedies for political gain in a way that would make terrorists proud.

The former hippie burnouts that make up today’s left-wing intelligentsia have gone from fighting the power to fighting for power; instead of opposing the man, they want to be the man.

In a masterstroke of irony, the same tree-hugging, weed-smoking, communal-living lefties who once wanted to “drop out” of the system now clammer for a micro-managing, hyper-regulatory, tax-and-spend government with powers tantamount to a police state. People can no longer trust themselves is the underlying message; they should trust the government with complete power in the blind faith that it will never be abused.

This is a great puzzle — something akin to playing Jenga drunk and blindfolded. But it is simply beyond the scope of a blog piece to explore why the liberal mind is a relativistic maze of internal contradictions strung together by fuzzy yarns of emotion and repressive tolerance. Simply pulling that thread would result in a mess requiring a psychotherapist on the order of Freud years to put back together. Instead of probing those irrational depths with the dim flashlight of rational thought, we will simply look at how the media manipulate non-objective minded souls on both the left and the right.

Fear. America witnessed it after 9/11. The feeling of awestruck terror, the initial shock bleeding into helplessness, as the second plane made it abundantly clear that it wasn’t an accident. Somebody had hijacked those planes and intended for Americans to die. The insecurity smoldering in the wreckage settled into a palpable way of life for years afterwards; and the event’s aftershocks are still felt today.

Unsureness as an American way of life was rare throughout the Clinton years prior; although the horrifying Oklahoma City bombing and the Columbine shooting provoked an intense sense of tragedy in the public at large. Other events were more memorable for political junkies: Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Unabomber — these events strangely came to symbolize a subculture where those who feared the government became branded by the media as nutjobs. Argument by anecdote is a left-wing media forte.

In that bygone era, mobilization to enact sweeping changes, such as something radical like gun confiscation, was clumsy and ineffectual. The populace was not sufficiently terrorized to give up its right to self-defense, whether from a criminal or the state (then again, I repeat myself)..

The hard left was once again forced to take the incrementalist road. People were alarmed and therefore wanted to “cling to their guns.” What the left needed were alarming tragedies that would persuade people their guns needed to be pried away. Left-wing agitators didn’t need to conjure up a catastrophe; they merely needed to observe the maxim “never let a good crisis go to waste.”

What gives the mainstream media game away to some extent are those things they choose to highlight and those they choose to ignore. Some things promote the left-wing media agenda, others do not. It’s in some ways a matter of timing, but also one of editorial discretion.

There had been the first WTC bombing attack in 1993, the Khobar Towers bombing of 1996, the U.S. embassy bombings of 1998, and the U.S.S. Cole bombing as Clinton was departing — but these events were intentionally muted by media that were more concerned with the president’s legacy than with effective and factual reporting.

None of these pre-9/11 terrorist attacks had provoked quite the level of hysterical crying out for action, removed from any context or rational discussion, as the recent Newtown massacre. And in some ways, the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting was outrageously brutal and inexplicable on a level uncountenanced since the Oklahoma City bombing. (And certainly since the Bath School bombing of 1927, which had killed 37 schoolchildren).

But the calls for gun control within hours of the terrible news comes off as both contrived and classless. The normal reaction for a human being upon learning of such rare and chilling news is to mourn and to pray for the families and victims. It’s not to beat the war drums of left-wing issue group causes and to instantly vilify known political adversaries like the NRA.

So, it’s hard for me to figure out who is sicker: Adam Lanza or those in the mainstream media who know the facts about gun control and immediately try to use the deaths of 20 children to promote a cause that has lost after long-standing rational and fact-based deliberation. It was the same mainstream media terrorist tactic that was seen with 9/11 and the ill-conceived Patriot Act (renewed twice by former opponent Barack Obama) — take a statistically rare but psychologically traumatic occurrence and exploit it to the utmost for more government power.

The left didn’t mind renewing the Patriot Act, because the Department of Homeland Security is like a mini-KGB for spying on Americans and running depraved operations like Fast & Furious, which deliberately put assault weapons in the hands of drug cartel members. These fine folks then predictably used those untraced weapons to kill dozens of Mexican citizens and at least one American, border patrol agent Brian Terry. Horrific, right? Well, the scandal doesn’t promote the gun control agenda, so you won’t hear about it.

And what about Benghazi? The administration refused to clearly call the security debacle the result of a “terrorist attack” for weeks, meanwhile blaming a pathetic anti-Islamic video. It was our fault for allowing wiseguys like that movie’s director to speak his stupid mind about Islam, and the president basically did the terrorists a service by promoting the al-Qaeda-preferred message: we are to blame.

The lapdog media lapped up and repeated the idiotic, implausible meme that a ridiculous YouTube video was the cause of the 9/11 anniversary attacks (after all, it helped promote the notion that al Qaeda was all but defeated in the president’s all-important re-election year). It’s our insensitive First Amendment that should be scrutinized, and not the Muslim extremists rioting at embassies and burning our flags — this was the media’s implicit chide. The future doesn’t belong to those who slander the prophet Muhammad, as the president so eloquently put it in his UN address.

And due to those reasons, the media are barely interested in the Benghazi attack that killed four Americans: Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stephens, diplomat Sean Smith, and security personnel Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. The heroic story of how Woods and Doherty disobeyed multiple stand-down orders, which were almost certainly known by and possibly given by the executive branch, is the stuff of Hollywood gold. But the mainstream media don’t care about their deaths, because they don’t help take away free speech or gun rights.

What does promote the gun control narrative? Slain children. It’s a harrowing image the mainstream media can project, and it is on that basis they can make their irrational arguments. (There are other images — like the conjuring up of a “fiscal cliff.”) Uber-tolerant leftists now want to fundamentally transform our culture into one that permits the petty manipulators in government to have their way with us. And yet there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that violent video games, movies, or music caused the rampage killing at Sandy Hook.

How can that be? Because as usual, mentally obtuse people only see what they see, and not what they don’t see. It’s the same with the economy as it is with violent crime: there is the fallacy of the seen and the unseen. People see the similarities among spree killers and conclude those similarities must cause them to kill; they don’t consider just how rare these spree killings are and just how many millions of people share those same characteristics and yet find a way not to kill classrooms of innocent children.

Activists in the mainstream media want to convince us that we are sick, that America is sick, and that we cannot be trusted with freedom. On the contrary, they are the ones who are sick. The control freaks of the left are intrinsically without shame and will exploit any tragedy to further their unquenchable powerlust.

THREE Denials for Help in Benghazi

Fox News has obtained information that confirms CIA operatives requested military backup 3 times during the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012.

According to Fox News Special Reporter Jennifer Griffin:

“They knew that the consulate was under fire and that the ambassador needed help. They were told to stand down twice.”

She explains that the small group of CIA operatives at the annex a few blocks south of the consulate then disregarded orders and made their way from the CIA annex to the consulate building. After searching unsuccessfully for the ambassador and making some “heroic efforts to rescue those who had survived,” they made their way back to the annex.

“At that point, another request for help, for military help, some sort of air cover, was made from the CIA annex but no help was sent.”

Shortly thereafter, another CIA team flew in from the capital city of Tripoli but were denied at the airport. According to Griffin’s report, there was “infighting” among Libyan officials on the ground about whether or not the team would be granted an escort to the compound.

Griffin continues, “According to sources on the ground during the Benghazi attack, they did have laser pointers on the mortar fire team, and that if Special Operations specter gun ships had been sent in, and some were on standby… that they could have prevented those mortars that struck the compound.”

Meanwhile back in D.C., a meeting was held at the Oval Office whose attendees included the President, Vice President and Secretary of Defense. That meeting was held at 5:00pm on the day of the attack, one hour AFTER the initial fire began.

There were 2 surveillance drones present during the 7 hour battle that could have been accessed by a number of US agencies.

MORE ON BENGHAZI:
Watch the Jennifer Griffin report
Hilary Clinton Assembles Legal Team
White House Knew
Bill tells Hillary to Resign

Workplace Violence Label Means Fewer Benefits for Fort Hood Heroes

fort hood

This is a story that should need little explanation.

On November 5, 2009 members of our military were gunned down by an Islamist Extremist shooter. The president and his administration have told us the war on terror is a war against a small but extreme group of religious zealots yet, they chose to ignore the shooter’s affiliation with radical Islam. Though the shooter had numerous exchanges with known terrorists, particularly Anwar al-Awlaki labeled by this administration as a leader of global terrorism with ties to al Qaeda (and who was ordered killed in a US lead drone attack) the Fort Hood Massacre was categorized as workplace violence.

Stars and Stripes: Classifying the shooting as terrorism will allow the victims to receive combat-related special compensation that provides disability pay for medically retired service members. The victims also would be eligible for Purple Hearts and medals for valor.

Watch this interview with one of the survivors:

 

%CODE%

Numerous witnesses, including those injured stated that Hasan shouted, “Allahu Akbar,” before he began shooting. Thirteen soldiers died (including one pregnant soldier) and many wounded during this personal jihad. Following the shooting known terrorist leader  Anwar Awlaki declared Hasan a hero, as “fighting against the U.S. army is an Islamic duty”.

But maybe you haven’t seen the whole story of the events at Fort Hood. The story has not been widely publicized. You can watch a chilling account of what happened as told by survivors of that horrific day:

Workplace violence or an act of Terrorism?

Crowley and the Benghazi statements: the debate and mistruths

Crowley admits Obama was wrong on Benghazi

In the Presidential Debate, Mitt Romney challenged the President saying that he did not come out in the Rose Garden and call the attack an “act of terror.” The debate moderator, Candy Crowley supported the President when he said that he had come out the next morning in the Rose Garden and did refer to the tragedy as an act of terror. If Romney had been better prepared, he might have been able to make the correct point better, but he wasn’t.

Shortly after the debate, CNN’s Candy Crowley had to admit that Mitt Romney had been correct and that she had been wrong – but how wrong?

The reality of the issue is that the following Sunday, President Obama sent his U.N. Ambassadar, Susan Rice, out on Sunday shows talking about an out-of-control protest that never existed – citing a video that had nothing to do with the attack. For two weeks the administration stuck to the video and protest as the cause for the death of four Americans – something they now say was incorrect and that they knew it the second the attack happened.

On the merits of the argument, Romney is correct, but he failed in execution due to poor timeline study. Crowley was out-of-place to interject on either side, but was not necessarily wrong – the President’s Rose Garden Speech has no reference to the video or a protest, but he does talk about acts of terror.

In the President’s official statement (full transcript), he made no reference to terrorism:

“I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America’s commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives.

I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.

On a personal note, Chris was a courageous and exemplary representative of the United States. Throughout the Libyan revolution, he selflessly served our country and the Libyan people at our mission in Benghazi. As Ambassador in Tripoli, he has supported Libya’s transition to democracy. His legacy will endure wherever human beings reach for liberty and justice. I am profoundly grateful for his service to my Administration, and deeply saddened by this loss.

The brave Americans we lost represent the extraordinary service and sacrifices that our civilians make every day around the globe. As we stand united with their families, let us now redouble our own efforts to carry their work forward.”

In the full transcript of the President’s Rose Garden speech the next morning, he made a general reference to “acts of terror”, but held short of calling Benghazi a terrorist attack:

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation. Often, they are away from their families. Sometimes, they brave great danger.

Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi. Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith. We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed. And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.

The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We’re working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I’ve also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya. Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans. Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.

It’s especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save. At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi. With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya. When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there. He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.

Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on. I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.

We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.

Thank you. May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America.

 

Does Obama Really Think Muslim Terrorists Will Not Come Here?

Have you ever heard of Lara Logan? She was born in South Africa, and is a reporter for CBS “60 Minute.” She was also, while reporting about the so-called “Arab Spring” at Tarhir Square, Cairo, Egypt, gang raped by the “peaceful” demonstaters there. So she has credenials, has been there, and knows about what she speaks.

On October 2, 2012, Lara Logan spoke at the Better Government Association annual luncheon in Chicago, IL. She had her piece, “The Longest War,” run on September 30, 2012, on CBS 60 Minutes, that examined the Afghanistan war and llustrated the hazards that, 11 years after 9/11, still confront America. At the luncheon, she said, “I chose this subject because, one, I can’t stand, that there is a major lie being propagated …” She emphasized that “Eleven years later, ‘they’ still hate us, now more than ever. The Taliban and al-Qaida have not been vanquished. They’re coming back. The lie is that America’s military might has tamed the Taliban.”

For contrast, during his weekly radio address on May 5, President Barack Hussein Hubris “kill list” Obama said, “After more than a decade at war, it is time to focus on nation building here at home.” Obama also emphasized that “… the tide of the war has turned it’s time for the country to focus on domestic issues such as creating jobs.”

For further contrast, Obama, in November 2007, said, “The day I’m inaugurated the Muslim world will look at America differently.”

For even more contrast, while Obama has been president, the US favorability rating in the Middle East (Lebanon, Tunisia, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, and Pakistan) is lower now than it was at the end of President Bush’s tenure as president.

And for even more contrast, the “spontaneous” attacks (read carefully planned by Islam Salafi with al-Qeida connections) in Egypt and Lybia were terrorist attacks on sovereign US territory.

So, does Obama really believe that his personality will prevail, that he can make Muslims like us, that (magically) terrorist attacks will not come here? The memory of 9/11, with over 3000 Americans killed, suggests otherwise. The memory of attacks in Egypt and Lybia, with four Americans killed, suggests otherwise. And the words of Laura Logan suggest otherwise.

But that’s just my opinion.

“It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.” – Ronald Reagan

Cross-posted at RWNO, my personal web site.

President Obama: Jihad Your Chance to Win the Election

Moslems commemorate 9/11 in their special way.

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.

Obama’s Carter Moment in the Middle East

While it’s not happening practically on the eve of the election, the attacks in Cairo and Benghazi are rapidly shaping up to be like President Carter’s situation with Iran in 1980. But, before the Romney camp can start celebrating, there are some very important issues that need addressing when it comes to the fumbling of the current administration. And there are some loose ends that need to be tied together.

First, let’s take a look at the events of yesterday, before the attacks. In the morning here in the States, Obama delivered remarks at the Pentagon. The more cynical among us were probably surprised that he limited himself at least a little, when it came to taking credit for the death of Osama bin Laden.

Most of the Americans we lost that day had never considered the possibility that a small band of terrorists halfway around the world could do us such harm. Most had never heard the name al Qaeda. And yet, it’s because of their sacrifice that we’ve come together and dealt a crippling blow to the organization that brought evil to our shores. Al Qaeda’s leadership has been devastated and Osama bin Laden will never threaten us again. Our country is safer and our people are resilient.

Perhaps the reference to the devastation of Al Qaeda’s leadership was alluding to the most recent death that has been brought up in context with the Cairo attack. But, that is something to consider a little later. For now, let’s leap to much later in the day, but still before the Cairo attack.

Andrew Kaczynski – @BuzzFeedAndrew

Only images of this tweet remain, this one from Andrew Kaczynski on BuzzFeed. The debate over government accounts deleting tweets, and the Library of Congress archives of those electronic communications can wait for another time. By the morning of September 12th eastern time, the Obama administration was backing down from this initial statement. It is not a reaction. The embassy doubled-down on the sentiment after the attack. But, this one came before it started, presumably because the embassy personnel knew there might be a riot in the first place. Questions and reprisals flew over this, and the administration’s attempt to back down from this position arguably is falling flat. Diplomatic personnel do not communicate with the world without guidance, period. Claiming that this was “unauthorized” is worse than admitting to the position, because it implies that there is a rogue element within the diplomatic corps that has the ability to communicate on behalf of this administration without any sort of guidance or supervision. And, bluntly, it is silly. This statement is typical of this administration, that has bent over backwards to appease Islamist organizations. One has to suspend disbelief to take this morning’s quasi-retraction of the statement seriously, especially since paraphrased forms of it were in both Obama’s and Secretary Clinton’s statements on these events – or event, depending on how one interpreted them.

That brings us to the tragedy that overshadowed the Cairo incident, and monopolized the official statements from the administration. Over the coming months, there is no doubt that there will be arguments over whether the Iran Hostage Crisis was better or worse than the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that resulted in the deaths of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three diplomatic staff members. Secretary Clinton was quick to point out that Libyans stepped up to help Americans, and defend the Consulate, including a mention that they carried the Ambassador’s body to the hospital. But, it’s unlikely that is the whole story. Before her speech, news had already broken that contradicted at least part of the Secretary’s comments. The whispers are already out there that the Libyans might have been involved in the attack, and that security at the Consulate wasn’t sufficient.

Given that, there is a possibility that these two attacks may be utterly unconnected, not even sharing cause. The anti-Mohammed movie is a rather thin excuse, even with many radicals in play in both nations. One of the filmmakers is in hiding, and another that has been attributed with the work is associated with a Coptic Christian organization in America. The fact that the film had been promoted to one extent or another by Terry Jones, of “Burn a Q’uran Day” fame, further muddies the water. Regardless, all accounts state that the film itself is laughable, poorly made, and definitely wouldn’t have been destined for anything but demise in obscurity if it wasn’t for these events. Perhaps it was enough to spark the flag desecration and chanting about Osama bin Laden in Cairo, but buying that it sparked the armed attack in Benghazi would be foolhardy. Conversely, accepting Secretary Clinton’s contentions that Ambassador Stevens was well-liked and accepted in Libya might not be intelligent either. That is by no means an implication that Stevens was doing anything wrong. It is a suggestion that maybe he was meeting more resistance in his attempts to help the Libyans than the administration is willing to admit publicly. That certainly makes more sense than blaming this all on an obscure, poorly made film.

And, in all of this, it seems that the media is happily avoiding one subject that this administration probably has no desire to cover. That is the question of the Muslim Brotherhood. Obama would have everyone believe that this an innocuous social service organization, that many current and former Islamic terrorists just happened to be associated with at one point or another during their lives. On the other side, alarmists cry that the organization is kin with Satan himself, and is hell bent on the destruction of the West. As with most things in life, the truth probably lies somewhere in between. For the purposes of bridging cultural gaps, perhaps it would be better to compare it with another organization that Americans are probably a little more familiar with – Sinn Fein, the political arm of Irish Republican Army. This suggestion is in the context of defining the function of the Muslim Brotherhood, not to imply direct connection between that organization and any terrorist groups. The MB has been scrupulous about keeping itself separate from those groups, and that is plainly illustrated by the fact that terrorists are apparently not welcome in the organization. They move on to more radical action after leaving the MB, period. But, that doesn’t change the fact that many Islamic terrorists get initial experience in Islamic activism within the MB. Sinn Fein was also careful to stay above the fray, and did not dirty its hands directly in the terrorist activities of the IRA. That is where the similarity lies, and there alone. Where Sinn Fein was implicated in funding IRA activities, the MB has not been connected financially or otherwise with any known terrorist organizations – at least that has not been uncovered, or reported widely.

The story behind these events is still unfolding, and it is possible that details may continue to filter out to the public even beyond November. But, the current take away is that yet again, the Obama administration has shown itself to be wholly disorganized, as shown with the initial communications from the Cairo Embassy via Twitter. To suggest that the President is beyond his depth is probably an understatement. Cairo and Benghazi do not exist in a vacuum, and Obama has done a great deal of harm to this nation’s diplomatic relations with the only true ally in the region – Israel. And that in itself is yet another story illustrating the amateurish foreign policy management in this administration. Whether or not this becomes a coffin nail for the Obama camp in November remains to be seen, but it would be bluntly insane if the Romney camp did not leave it alone for now, only to resurrect it late next month.

911 Is Who Americans Are

We were not white or black, legal or illegal, Jewish, Islam or Christian. We were not the haves or the have-nots, the 1% or the ninety-nine, we weren’t prideful elitists or gun-totin’ rednecks. We were, just, Americans.

We honor the thousands who died and the many Americans who have served and are currently serving in our nation’s military—many enlisting as a response to the 9/11 attacks. Come together this 9/11 to honor, remember and reunite. Explore the 911 Interactive Timeline.

Visit the New York Memorial by clicking here:

 

Who Americans Are

September 11, 2001 is the unique moment when every American realized something had gone unthinkably awry. The only question was, how awry. We telephoned loved ones to ease ourselves by simply knowing they were reachable. We tried to comfort friends and those of us who could, gathered with them. We understood these were the last moments of thousands of innocent Americans’ lives. None of us were sure how far its tenacles might reach into the once safe haven of our own.

In those dawning moments and by shear human nature Americans adhered into the united nation of one that we by nature are. We were not white or black, legal or illegal, Jewish, Islam or Christian. We were not the haves or the have-nots, the 1% or the ninety-nine, we weren’t prideful elitists or gun-totin’ rednecks. We were, just, Americans.

We watched countrymen cover every inch of New York City streets with postings of the missing, pleading for some sign of survival. We hung in disbelief on news accounts of planes crashing into skyscrapers, skyscrapers bursting into burning debris and people jumping from them before they collapsed into piles of rubble with thousands still inside. Ash and residue of lives-lived filled crevaces of life we didn’t even know had crevaces. Phone messages of the dying’s fighting words or last goodbyes echoed into the forever resounding canyons of American posterity. Innocents died and heros were born.

In the following days leagues of firefighters, policemen, public utility crews, and private industries from across our nation trekked Midwest interstates to bustling East Coast highways, to aid and assist. Private contractors and crews with personal leave took off work to go on their own, none having concern for their next union contract, who’d pay for the travel, if they’d get overtime – or if they’d be paid at all. Strangers on our streets began waving in nodding gestures and businesses extended the long lost art of caring courtesies, each of us intuitively knowing the patriotism of American brotherhood that was being extended. Words weren’t necessary, because we were, all, Americans.

We taped our country’s flag against work windows from every office building, draped it from rooftops and flew it from flag poles that seemed to sprout from our soils overnight. It flapped from car doors and clung to car trunks, we pinned them to our lapels, sewed them on our uniforms and stuck them to official game gear. First and foremost and above anything and everything else, we were, all, Americans.

Our country’s ethnicities hewned mankind’s perfection from our melting pot of American Exceptionalism and it felt good. Our love of God and country gave us faith, our faith gave us strength, our strength gave us courage, and our courage melded into a patriotism that is America. 911 epitomized our people’s unbeatable determination to overcome the bully that tries to take a nip out of our soul but gives rise to our American spirit instead.

This is who Americans are. If this isn’t your America, you don’t belong here.

Don’t turn your country over to a president who is anything less.

Obama Gets SEAL’ed! Navy SEALs ‘Swift Boat’ the Prez

Ben smith

Navy Seals and other Special Operations forces have teamed up to create this video blasting the Obama administration for not only taking credit for Bin Laden’s death, but leaking highly sensitive intelligence information in the process of the announcement and the days and months following.

“Mr. President, you did not kill Osama Bin Laden. America killed Osama Bin Laden. The work that the American military has done killed Osama Bin Laden” – Ben Smith, Navy Seal.

“We have become a political weapon. We are not. Our job is to be silent professionals. We do not seek recognition. We do not seek popularity” – Ben Smith, Navy Seal.

“If I had one piece of advice for this administration it would be the same thing former Secretary of Defense Bob Gates said…Shut the f*** up!” – Bob Cowan, Lt.Colonel, USMC (retired)

These men are trained in the art of stealth. They are nurtured in the environment of secrecy. For Navy Seals and other classified operatives to come forward publicly and denounce the President on this issue is, as our esteemed Vice President might say a “big, f***ing deal”.

Obama is being swift boated…scratch that. He’s been SEAL’ed!

Watch it all. And share (runs about 22 minutes).

 

crossposted at kiradavis.net

The US Needs to Learn About Fighting Terrorism From Norway

Beverly & Pack (CC)

Sure, that probably sounds insane. How in the world could Norway know anything about fighting terrorism, right?

Maybe not. With the recent shooting in Colorado, there has been some mention of the terrorist in Norway that rocked that nation about a year ago. Unlike the U.S., Norway did not pass sweeping legislation, and radically increase security. Their solution was increased transparency and democracy.

While I am not in the least bit interested in, or impressed with the “love in”, warm and fuzzy attitude of Norway’s leaders, I am intrigued with the concept of the full-frontal assault on terrorism without raising a weapon. They recognized something that we didn’t, at least not immediately, after 9/11. Maybe Norway wouldn’t have taken the route they did if it wasn’t for our losses, but I digress.

Beverly & Pack (CC)


Instead of acting on fear, Norway chose to stick to its principles, and refuse to give in to that base emotion. And that is, from a psychological point of view, arguably the best response to a terrorist attack. Acts of terror are perpetrated to instill fear. If the target doesn’t respond in a fearful manner, the terrorist does not truly succeed, regardless of what physical damage was caused.

Al Qaeda’s real victory over the U.S. wasn’t on the day of the attacks. It was when our Congress passed the Patriot Act, and when we stopped living our lives the way we had before 9/11. We lost part of our identity as a nation because of that, and we may never be able to retrieve that. But, that doesn’t mean that we can’t learn from Norway now.

There have been many complaints and investigations over the past several months about the incompetency and overreaching of the TSA, for example. Is the screening that we subject ourselves to really necessary? I know there are plenty out there that would argue that it is. But there are those on the other side that say the screenings really do not do much to protect us.

While I’m not saying that the U.S. could ever approach terrorism exactly the way Norway has, I do think that we need to examine the psychology behind their choices. We need to re-examine our priorities when it comes to national security, and terrorism. With an administration that hasn’t been very good at plugging intelligence leaks, ironically enough we are presented with a unique opportunity. We can look at least a few of our choices when it comes to “making America safe from terrorism”, and weigh their real value. Are they really worth surrendering certain freedoms? Or would dispensing with those measures be the better choice?

The big question for us is the same one Norway faced. Is just feeling safer worth surrendering even an ounce of freedom as we have for past decade? Are we really any safer, and is our “increased security” hurting us more than it is helping us? This is not about threat assessment. That is another issue. This is about weighing our current (false?) sense of security versus giving terrorists the satisfaction that they have made us change our way of life because of them. Is walking through airport security barefoot worth it anymore? Are the intrusive groping sessions making us safer, or just disgusted and humiliated? Are we daily giving terrorists their jollies by jumping through insane hoops? And, perhaps even more important than all of that, are we surrendering too many personal liberties, and too much privacy to allow the government to investigate “potential terror threats”? Norway has shown it is possible to move on after suffering a terrorist attack without surrendering freedoms. If they can do it, why can’t we?

Married to the Game: Aurora, Sooper Mexican, Media Malpractice, and Gun Control Laws

miccheck

In this episode, we discuss the tragedy in Aurora, Colorado.  We ask important questions like: what were the shooter’s motives?  Did he work alone?  Should movie theaters start (at least) putting sensors on the exits doors that are INSIDE the movie theater, so management knows that someone is going through that door while the movie is showing?  Was the coward “psychotic” or “insane”?  And we make the determination that the “Coward in Colorado” shall not be named; he does not deserve one ounce of notoriety for this heinous act.  I’m joined in this segment by the always insightful SooperMexican.

Also, Twitter’s “Sean Hannity’s Hair” stops by to discuss the media malpractice and the media bias that led ABC to try and blame an innocent member of the Tea Party for this horrific crime.

And finally (but not least), Tom from Indiana calls in to discuss the merits of changing our gun laws in the wake of this tragic event.  (we also discuss the importance of responsible gun ownership)

This show is packed with terrific insight and lots of honest discussion, and it’s not one to be missed.

CLICK here TO HEAR IT NOW.

 

And, of course, our hearts go out to the victims of this despicable shooting, and the entire community of Aurora is in our prayers.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »