Pelosi Lied About Not Being Briefed On Waterboarding

Man! If it isn’t lying on their taxes, the Dems will find other things to lie about.

The latest lie comes from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Although she claims she never knew about the enhanced interrogation technique known as waterboarding, newly released CIA documents now show she did indeed know.

Oh, and if you are one of those who keep repeating that this is some sort of right-wing conspiracy, check out the names of the sources first.

From the New York Times:

The new chart of briefings, prepared by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, was the first full listing of briefings to members of Congress and their aides. It appears to call into question the longstanding assertion of Speaker Nancy Pelosi that she was never told that waterboarding and other methods were actually used, only that the Central Intelligence Agency believed they were legal and could be used.

The chart shows that in addition to Ms. Pelosi, Democrats briefed on the methods included former Senator Bob Graham of Florida in 2002 and Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia and Representative Jane Harman of California in 2003.

And the Washington Post has this:

A top aide to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi attended a CIA briefing in early 2003 in which it was made clear that waterboarding and other harsh techniques were being used in the interrogation of an alleged al-Qaeda operative, according to documents the CIA released to Congress on Thursday.

Pelosi has insisted that she was not directly briefed by Bush administration officials that the practice was being actively employed. But Michael Sheehy, a top Pelosi aide, was present for a classified briefing that included Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), then the ranking minority member of the House intelligence committee, at which agency officials discussed the use of waterboarding on terrorism suspect Abu Zubaida.

Clearly, despite Pelosi’s attempt at spinning this situation, she knew about waterboarding at least 6 years ago and most likely, 8 years ago. She only came out against the technique when it became politically advantageous to do so.

But, I guess you should expect that from a Democrat. Political advancement above the security of the American people. That seems to be their new credo.

You can access both articles on-line here:

List Says Top Democrats Were Briefed On Interrogations
Scott Shane and Carl Hulse
New York Times
May 8, 2009

Top Pelosi Aide Learned Of Waterboarding In 2003
Paul Kane
Washington Post
May 9, 2009

Taliban To Gain Control Of A Nuclear-Armed Pakistan?

I remember the libs stamping their feet and screaming that the election of Barack Obama would make the world a safer, better place. Well, someone forgot to tell that to the Taliban in Pakistan.

The Taliban is threatening to topple the Pakistani government. From the Daily Mail:

Extremists are now just 60 miles from the capital Islamabad, sparking fears that they are are poised to wrest control of the country, which has nuclear capability.

This morning a Taliban spokesman said that fighters would withdraw from Buner later today.

‘Our leader has ordered that Taliban should immediately be called back from Buner,’ spokesman Muslim Khan said.

Khan belongs to a faction led by Taliban commander Fazlullah, whose stronghold is in the neighbouring Swat valley where the government has caved in to demands for the imposition of Islamic law.

The announcement came hours after the capital Islamabad came under threat from Taliban fighters.

It is feared that the state is one the brink of collapse as Taliban fighters get closer to the nuclear powers of the country.

As violence broke out in the north-west corner of the country, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Pakistan posed a ‘mortal threat’ to the world.

‘I think the Pakistani government is basically abdicating to the Taliban and the extremists,’ she added.

And White House spokesman Robert Gibbs echoed her concerns. He said last night: ‘The news over the past several days is very disturbing.’

article-1172651-049d1856000005dc-214_634x404
(Trucks burning after Taliban militants attacked a NATO staging area.)

Keep a close eye on this one, folks. Just as the Somali pirate problem was the first question on Obama’s test, this is now the second question. And given Pakistan’s claim to possess nuclear weapons, this becomes even more interesting.

How will Obama respond to a terrorist regime governing a nuclear-armed Pakistan? That will most certainly qualify as a defining moment for the United States.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

You Have One Last Chance To Retreat – Or Face The Consequences, Pakistan Leader Tells Taliban Militants
Liz Hazleton
Daily Mail UK
April 24, 2009

A Letter From The American Legion To Homeland Security

David K. Rehbein, National Commander of the American Legion is firing back at DHS for the slander against America’s Military Veterans:

Secretary Janet Napolitano
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528

April 13, 2009

Dear Secretary Napolitano,

On behalf of the 2.6 million-member American Legion, I am stating my concern about your April 7 report, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence and Recruitment.”

First, I want to assure you that The American Legion has long shared your concern about white supremacist and anti-government groups. In 1923, when the Ku Klux Klan still yielded unspeakable influence in this country, The American Legion passed Resolution 407. It resolved, in part, “…we consider any individual, group of individuals or organizations, which creates, or fosters racial, religious or class strife among our people, or which takes into their own hands the enforcement of law, determination of guilt, or infliction of punishment, to be un-American, a menace to our liberties, and destructive to our fundamental law…”

The best that I can say about your recent report is that it is incomplete. The report states, without any statistical evidence, “The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.”

The American Legion is well aware and horrified at the pain inflicted during the Oklahoma City bombing, but Timothy McVeigh was only one of more than 42 million veterans who have worn this nation’s uniform during wartime. To continue to use McVeigh as an example of the stereotypical “disgruntled military veteran” is as unfair as using Osama bin Laden as the sole example of Islam.

Your report states that “Rightwing extremists were concerned during the 1990s with the perception that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to work at significantly lower wages.” Secretary Napolitano, this is more than a perception to those who have lost their job. Would you categorize union members as “Right Wing extremists”?

In spite of this incomplete, and, I fear, politically-biased report, The American Legion and the Department of Homeland Security share many common and crucial interests, such as the Citizen Corps and disaster preparedness. Since you are a graduate of New Mexico Girls State, I trust that you are very familiar with The American Legion. I would be happy to meet with you at a time of mutual convenience to discuss issues such as border security and the war on terrorism. I think it is important for all of us to remember that Americans are not the enemy. The terrorists are.

Sincerely,

David K. Rehbein
National Commander
The American Legion

Love the reference to Osama Bin Laden as a reality check.

Department Of Homeland Security Paints Targets On Veterans’ Backs

In what is obviously a pro-Democrat partisan move, the Department of Homeland Security released a report stating that U.S. Military Veterans are likely to become extremists working for right-wing groups. No mention was made of people like Bill Ayers being extremists for left-wing groups though.

This whole thing is a huge slap in the face to our Veterans. There was absolutely no evidence, data or other factual information in the report to back up any claims. Clearly, this report was authored by some Democrat political appointee to DHS who has a goal of seeing our Veternas relegated to the status of third-class citizen.

From Fox News:


“The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the 1990s when right-wing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers.,” it continues.

The report also suggests that returning veterans are attractive recruits for right-wing groups looking for “combat skills and experience” so as to boost their “violent capabilities.” It adds that new restrictions on gun ownership and the difficulty of veterans to reintegrate into their communities “could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.”

DHS spokeswoman Sara Kuban said the April 7 assessment is one in an ongoing series published by DHS “to facilitate a greater understanding of radicalization in the United States.”

“DHS has no specific information that domestic right-wing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but right-wing extremists may be gaining new recruitments by playing on their fears about several emerging issues,” Kuban said.

But some critics have said the DHS is equating conservative views to right-wing terrorism, but a DHS official countered that earlier this year, the department issued a mirror intelligence assessment of left-wing extremist groups.

FOX News has obtained a copy of the assessment, dated Jan. 26 and titled “Left-wing Extremists Likely to Increase Use of Cyberattacks Over the Coming Decade.” It concentrates largely on the technical savvy of left-wing extremists and not bloodshed.

So, some politically appointed Democrat at DHS wants to discredit the honor of our Military Veterans by painting them as some sort of violent crowd while at the same time saying the left-wing extremists are nothing more than computer geeks?

Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, anyone? And what about those Islamic terrorists training camps around the United States? Are they not worth mentioning either?

I am a veteran of the United States Marine Corps and proud of it. If anyone, especially leftist-socialist Democrats, wants to take issue with that, they may do so personally by leaving comments on this blog. But to hide behind a blatantly biased report and then claim that leftists would do nothing more than hack a website is, in a word, chutzpuh.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Homeland Security Warns Of Rise In Right-Wing Extremism
Mike Levine
Fox News
April 14, 2009

Fred C. Iklé: Kill The Pirates

Short, sweet and to the point. The title says it all. Kill the pirates. That is the best way to stop them. It worked down in the Carribean 300 years ago and it will work again today.

Writing for the Washington Post, Fred C. Iklé (a distinguished scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and author of Annihilation From Within and Every War Must End) makes clear that anything other than meeting this threat head-on will be counterproductive.

From his column:

It is naive to assume that the millions paid annually in ransom to pirates merely enables them to purchase villas and fancy automobiles. Somalia is a country without government, where anarchy is being exploited by terrorist organizations. Although the threat that pirates pose to commercial ships is increasingly known, little is being done to combat it. And we must consider the bigger picture: Terrorists are far more brutal than pirates and can easily force pirates — petty thieves in comparison — to share their ransom money.

Who among you believes that paying $1 million in ransom money will actually end piracy? You would have to be incredibly gullible to believe so. The pirates will think about it this way: if taking a ship is worth $1 million in ransoms, then taking a ship twice as big should be worth $2 million in ransoms.

Paying the ransom only encourages the pirates to attempt more hijackings in order to get more money.

Mr. Iklé goes on:

So why do we keep rewarding Somali pirates? How is this march of folly possible?

Start by blaming the timorous lawyers who advise the governments attempting to cope with the pirates such as those who had been engaged in a standoff with U.S. hostage negotiators in recent days. These lawyers misinterpret the Law of the Sea Treaty and the Geneva Conventions and fail to apply the powerful international laws that exist against piracy. The right of self-defense — a principle of international law — justifies killing pirates as they try to board a ship.

So, what should we have been doing all along? We should have been putting armed personnel aboard those ships. A pirate would think twice about going out on such a venture if he knew that the last three times someone from his group went out to attack a vessel that armed crewmen killed the attackers. There is not much profit in death.

More:

Nonetheless, entire crews are unarmed on the ships that sail through the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. Shipowners pretend that they cannot trust their crews with weapons, but the facts don’t add up. For one thing, in the United States most adults except felons are allowed to have guns, and the laws of many other nations also permit such ownership. Even if owners don’t want everyone aboard their ships to be carrying weapons, don’t they trust the senior members of their crews? Why couldn’t they at least arm the captain and place two experienced and reliable police officers on board?

When these pitifully unarmed crews watch pirates climb aboard their vessels, they can do little to fight back. And while the United States and many other naval powers keep warships in the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean — deployments that cost millions of dollars — these ships cannot keep pirates from boarding commercial ships that have unarmed crews.

The international right of self-defense would also justify an inspection and quarantine regime off the coast of Somalia to seize and destroy all vessels that are found to be engaged in piracy. These inspections could reduce the likelihood that any government will find itself engaged in a hostage situation such as the one that played out in recent days. Furthermore, the U.N. Security Council should prohibit all ransom payments. If the crew of an attacked ship were held hostage, the Security Council could authorize a military blockade of Somalia until the hostages were released.

Cowardice will not defeat terrorism, nor will it stop the Somali pirates. If anything, continuing to meet the pirates’ demands only acts as an incentive for more piracy.

Absolutely.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Kill The Pirates
Fred C. Iklé
Washington Post
April 13, 2009

What Do You Call Three Dead Somali Pirates?

A fairly decent start.

My hat is off to the Obama administration for taking such decisive action against the Somali pirates holding Captain Richard Phillips hostage in a life boat out on the Indian Ocean.

In a courageous rescue, Navy SEALs killed three pirates during the successful mission.

From the Associated Press:

In a daring high-seas rescue, U.S. Navy SEAL snipers killed three Somali pirates and freed the American sea captain who had offered himself as a hostage to save his crew.

Although many news outlets are hailing this as a great victory for Obama and claiming that he has passed his first international test, the pirates are promising revenge:

The operation was a victory for the world’s most powerful military but angry pirates vowed Monday to retaliate.

Those threats raised fears for the safety of some 230 foreign sailors still held hostage in more than a dozen ships anchored off the coast of lawless Somalia.

“From now on, if we capture foreign ships and their respective countries try to attack us, we will kill them (the hostages),” Jamac Habeb, a 30-year-old pirate, told the Associated Press from one of Somalia’s piracy hubs, Eyl. “(U.S. forces have) become our No. 1 enemy.”

It appears that a new front has opened in the Global struggle against terrorism and we Americans are once again being brought to center stage.

Now, unlike my liberal counterparts who want to blame President Bush for everything the terrorists did over the past eight years, I will not blame Barack Obama for whatever the pirates and other terrorists do in response to this rescue. The blame falls solely and squarely on the pirates and terrorists themselves, just as it did during the Bush years.

This was not the first test of the Obama administration. It was the first question of the first test. Many more questions will come up and you can bet that the pirates and terrorists will be the ones writing them.

One Somali pirate noted:

“Every country will be treated the way it treats us. In the future, America will be the one mourning and crying,” Abdullahi Lami, one of the pirates holding a Greek ship anchored in the Somali town of Gaan, told The Associated Press on Monday. “We will retaliate (for) the killings of our men.”

I applaud the Obama administration for taking this action, but I am still waiting to see how this will play out in the coming months. Obama will have a hard time trying to reconcile his policy of “listening and learning” against the hard-line policy of taking swift action to protect American lives and interests. Reality is always different from academic exercise.

As for those countries who will want to blame the U.S. for whatever happens to their own sailors in the pirates’ custody, those sailors wouldn’t be their if those countries had taken steps to protect/rescue those sailors in the first place.

We shall have to wait and see which policy wins out, and whether or not such policy has the desired effects.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Captain Freed After Snipers Kill Somali Pirates
Associated Press via MSNBC
April 13, 2009

Two More Obama Insults To Our Collective Intelligence

One thing Obama is good at is insulting the collective intelligence of the entire United States of America. For example, he tells us that this will be the most morally upright administration in history, but then nominates an entire slew of cabinet members who “forgot” to pay their taxes. He promises transparency in his administration, but then goes behind closed doors and locks Republican lawmakers out of the legislative process. He signs into law a stimulus package that includes protection of bonuses for companies like AIG and then turns around and says that the bonuses are wrong.

I could go on and on with the missteps this guy has made before his first 100 days in office are done, but I’d like to move on to two more.

First, the White House claims that Obama did not bow to the Saudi King Abdullah. Interesting claim considering the video clearly shows Obama bowing to the Saudi ruling anti-semite.

Ben Smith of the Politico has this:

The White House is denying that the president bowed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at a G-20 meeting in London, a scene that drew criticism on the right and praise from some Arab outlets.

“It wasn’t a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he’s taller than King Abdullah,” said an Obama aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

And why is this an insult to our intelligence? Because Obama is also taller than Queen Elizabeth but no such bow seemed to be necessary in that meeting.

You can access that complete story and video on-line here:

White House: No Bow To Saudi
Ben Smith
The Politico
April 8, 2009

Obama also insulted our collective intelligence by by refusing to give any comment whatsoever on the Somali pirate hostage situation in which an American is being held against his will.

When asked by a reporter for comment, Obama refused and instead wanted to stick to some sort of script.

From Reuters:

April 9 (Reuters) – U.S. President Barack Obama declined to answer reporters’ questions on Thursday on a hostage crisis off the coast of Somalia, where a U.S. ship captain is being held captive by pirates.

Obama was asked to comment on the situation several times by reporters at a White House event on refinancing for homeowners. Obama, however, stuck closely to the script and replied that he wanted to remain focused on housing.

Is the situation just not that important to him? Couldn’t he have said something reassuring to the family of the hostage? No. He couldn’t bring himself to be that good of a leader.

Maybe the person running the teleprompter could have put something up about it so that Obama would at least have had a script to read.

You can access the article on-line here:

Obama Declines Comment On US Hostage Crisis Off Somalia
Jeff Mason, Sandra Maler
Reuters
April 9, 2009

Looking Deeper Into The Pirate Attack On MAERSK ALABAMA

In my post from yesterday, I wondered whether or not the Somali pirate attack on the U.S.-flagged MAERSK ALABAMA may have been a result of the pirates being emboldened by Obama’s various shows of weakness during his European tour.

Other are thinking exactly what I was thinking. An editorial from Investor’s Business Daily notes some interesting circumstances that we must not be dismissive of and what the consequences of any action by the Obama administration would be.

From the article:

At 7:30 a.m., 280 miles off the Somali coast, a gang of pirates attacked the U.S.-flagged Maersk Alabama carrying 17,000 tons of U.S. humanitarian aid to Kenya. It was the sixth ship hit since Saturday, but the first U.S.-flagged vessel hit since 1804.

It poses an important test for the new Obama administration, still not 100 days in power, and it’s critical the response be decisive.

First, it’s likely the pirates knew it was an American ship, given the planning and firepower it takes to hit one 280 miles off the coast. If that’s so, then the attack had a political aspect, and the pirates wanted to show the U.S. as weak.

Two, the pirates aren’t the only bad actors in that region. Terrorists will watch the U.S. response closely and adjust their calculations accordingly. Unlike the foreign affairs jaunts Obama has participated in, involving only talk, this incident will be judged by the concreteness of the response.

I know that somewhere along the line Obama said that he “had no patience” for those who blow up bombs for political ends, but those are simply words. I highly doubt that if Obama comes out and says that he “has no patience” with Somali pirates that the pirates will suddenly release their hostages and free all of the ships they captured.

Words do not deter criminals and terrorists. Effectively forceful responses do. Say what you want about President Bush, but you have to acknowledge the fact that there have been no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001. If the terrorists still hated us afterward, what stopped them from mounting anymore attacks? The effective use of force by the Bush administration, that’s what.

Obama’s response is one we must watch carefully. And here is why:

Precedent is worth noting.

In 1993, with Bill Clinton’s presidency just beginning, Somali hoodlums also attacked and murdered American troops delivering aid to the indigent. They dragged the troops’ bodies through the streets and crowds cheered. Instead of making the barbarians pay, Clinton ordered American troops out.

This alerted the region’s terrorists that Americans were easy to push around. One of these terrorists was Osama bin Laden.

According to the 9/11 commission report, a bin Laden fatwa in 1996 praised the Somali attack because the U.S. “left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you.”

The report goes on to say that bin Laden was behind the attacks on the American helicopters. Lawrence Wright, in “The Looming Tower,” noted that whether he was or not, he thought it important to claim credit.

Despite the fact that this pirate attack is ultimately a failure, it is a failure because of the fortitude and resourcefulness of the crew, not because of anything the Obama administration did. As of this writing, they still haven’t done anything in response. Pirates and terrorists around the world are not looking at the crew of MAERSK ALABAMA as a measure of risk for future attacks; they are looking at how the U.S. government will respond as their measure of risk.

IBD is right. This is the first real test of the resolve and mettle of the Obama administration. If Obama fails this test, it will be a major repeat of the first major international mistake of the Clinton administration.

And we all know exactly where that mistake led to.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Somali Pirates Lay Out Another Test
Investor’s Business Daily
April 8, 2009

Somali Pirates Hijack American Ship; Update: Crew Retakes Control

UPDATE II:

It appears as though the Captain of the MAERSK ALABAMA was taken hostage by the pirates when the crew retook control of the ship.

From MSNBC:

The American crew of a hijacked U.S.-flagged ship retook control of the vessel from Somali pirates Wednesday but the captain was still being held hostage, according to Pentagon officials and a member of the crew.

The crewman told The Associated Press that the 20-member crew had managed to seize one pirate and then successfully negotiate their own release.

The man, who picked up the ship’s satellite phone but did not identify himself, told the AP in a brief conversation that the crew had retaken control of the ship and the pirates were in a lifeboat. But the man also said the pirates were holding the ship’s captain hostage.

The crew overpowered one of the pirates and used him as a negotiating chip for their own release. The other three pirates took the captain hostage in retaliation and fled in a lifeboat. There were negotiations to do an exchange, but although the crew held up their end and released the pirate, the other three pirates reneged on the agreement and are still holding the captain.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Pentagon: U.S. Crew Retakes Ship From Pirates
NBC News
April 8, 2009


UPDATE:

The Associated Press is now reporting that the crew of the ship has retaken control and has one of the pirates in custody.

“The crew is back in control of the ship,” a U.S. official said at midday, speaking on condition of anonymity because she was not authorized to speak on the record. “It’s reported that one pirate is on board under crew control—the other three were trying to flee,” the official said. The status of the other pirates was unknown, the official said, but they were reported to “be in the water.”

The crew apparently contacted the private shipping that it works for. That company, Maersk, scheduled a noon news conference in Norfolk, Va, defense officials said.

Another U.S. official, citing a readout from an interagency conference call, said: “Multiple reliable sources are now reporting that the Maersk Alabama is now under control of the U.S. crew. The crew reportedly has one pirate in custody. The status of others is unclear, they are believed to be in the water.”

I hope those other three pirates can stay afloat long enough for a few sharks to swim by. Maybe someone could send another boat out there to chum the water.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Officials: US Vessel Now Back In Hands Of Crew
Pauline Jelinek
Associated Press via Breitbart
April 8, 2009

Now we really need to see Obama’s response. Will he apologize for the “arrogance” of the crew’s retaking the vessel from the pirates? Will he offer reparations to any of the pirates’ families if the pirates die? Will he offer up the crew as war criminals for counter-attacking and retaking their own vessel?

These questions may seem silly, but given Obama’s conduct during his European tour, they are legitimate.


This from the Associated Press:

Somali pirates on Wednesday hijacked a U.S.-flagged cargo ship with 20 American crew members onboard, according to the shipping company.

The 17,000-ton Maersk Alabama was carrying emergency relief to Mombasa, Kenya at the time it was hijacked, said Peter Beck-Bang, spokesman for the Copenhagen-based container shipping group A.P. Moller-Maersk.

In a statement, the company later confirmed that the U.S.-flagged vessel has 20 U.S. nationals onboard.

Now, the question is whether Obama will send bailout money to Maersk to pay the ransom or will he try to secure the release of the ship by apologizing for the “arrogance” of the American crewman?

I’m wondering whether or not Obama’s various shows of weakness during his European tour (bowing to a despot, calling America “arrogant,” praising Islam for a betterment that never happened, etc.) may have had something to do with emboldening the pirates to attack a U.S.-flagged vessel.

We should all be watching this and how Obama handles it. Attacking an American ship on the high seas is not something that our government should take lightly.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Somali Pirates Hijack Ship; 20 Americans Aboard
Katherine Houreld
Associated Press via TownHall.com
April 8, 2009

Obama Makes Ridiculous Claim That Islam Has Shaped The World ‘For The Better’

Just what rock has Barack Obama been hiding under for the past 50 years? Where did he learn about Islam such that he would be so blind to the reality of a very hateful and intolerant religion?

According to Associated Press, Obama said the following to the Turks:

“America’s relationship with the Muslim world cannot and will not be based on opposition to al Qaida,” he said. “We seek broad engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect.”

“Mutual respect?” Since when has the Islamic world ever shown respect for America?

Since when have the loud speakers at Mecca ever said one, single respectful thing about the United States? The Muslim world has no respect for us at all and Obama is not going to change that by trying to “make nice” with people who have no intention of making nice in return.

They have shown nothing but disrespect and disdain for us. They celebrated when 19 of their brethren killed 3,000 innocent people on September 11, 2001.

More:

“We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over so many centuries to shape the world for the better, including my own country,” Obama said.

“For the better?” Who in their right mind would ever say such a thing?

Is it “for the better” that women are treated like property and have massive restrictions placed on them? Is it “for the better” that the practitioners of Islam are completely intolerant towards other religions? Is it “for the better” that Muslim children are taught to hate non-Muslims from the day they are born?

Is it “for the better” that few, if any, Islamics have made any attempt at speaking out against those who support the following suras:

“O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.” (Sura 5, verse 51).

“And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah DESTROY them; how they are turned away!” (Sura 9, verse 30).

“And the Jews will not be pleased with you, nor the Christians until you follow their religion. Say: Surely Allah’s guidance, that is the (true) guidance. And if you follow their desires after the knowledge that has come to you, you shall have no guardian from Allah, nor any helper.” (Sura 2, verse 120).

“And KILL them (the unbelievers) wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.” (Sura 2, verse 191).

“Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming.” (Sura 3, verse 28).

“And when you journey in the earth, there is no blame on you if you shorten the prayer, if you fear that those who disbelieve will cause you distress, surely the unbelievers are your open ENEMY.” (Sura 4, verse 101).

“O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).” (Sura 9, verse 123).

“Surely We have prepared for the unbelievers chains and shackles and a burning fire.” (Sura 76, verse 4).

“O you who believe! if you obey a party from among those who have been given the Book (The Jews and Christians), they will turn you back as unbelievers after you have believed.” (Sura 3, verse 100).

What does the Koran say about women? Will Obama go on record as saying that these things that Islamics teach their children about how women are to be regarded under Islamic law are “for the better?”

Here are some more excerpts from the Koran:

“Men are superior to women because Allah has made so. Therefore good women are obedient, and (as to) those (women) on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and BEAT them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.” (Sura 4, verse 34).

“And as for those who are guilty of an indecency from among your women, call to witnesses against them, four (witnesses) from among you; then if they bear witness confine them to the houses until death takes them away or Allah opens some way for them.” (Sura 4, verse 15).

“O you who believe! when you deal with each other in contracting a debt for a fixed time then call in to witness from among your men two witnesses; but if there are not two men, then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be witnesses, so that if one of the two errs, the second of the two may remind the other.” (Sura 2, verse 282).

“Your wives are a tilth (sexual toy) for you, so go into your tilth when you like, and do good beforehand for yourselves, and be careful (of your duty) to Allah, and know that you will meet Him, and give good news to the believers.” (Sura 2, verse 223).

“O you who believe! do not go near prayer until you have washed yourselves; and if you have touched women, and you cannot find water, betake yourselves to pure earth, then wipe your faces and your hands; surely Allah is Pardoning, Forgiving.” (Sura 4, verse 43).

“They ask you for a decision of the law. Say: Allah gives you a decision concerning the person who has neither parents nor offspring; if a man dies (and) he has no son and he has a sister, she shall have half of what he leaves, and he shall be her heir she has no son; but if there be two (sisters), they shall have two-thirds of what he leaves; and if there are brethren, men and women, then the male shall have the like of the portion of two females; Allah makes clear to you, lest you err; and Allah knows all things.” (Sura 4, verse 176).

But, according to Obama, all this abusive misteatment of women is “for the better,” right?

I know that some of you moral relativists out there are going to say that similar verses appear in Judeo-Christian religious texts. That is correct, but few, if any Jews or Christians are actively trying to apply those writings to the real word the way the majority of Muslims seem to be doing.

The big difference between Islam and Judeo-Christianity is that Jews and Christians have been enlightened over the years by actively seeking knowledge outside of the church. Muslims seem to be stuck in the 7th Century.

As a case in point, Iran recently passed a law making it a capital crime to be anything other than Muslim in Iran.

Was there any outrage at all from the Muslim community over this? No. I don’t remember hearing one little peep out of any of them.

You can access the complete news story on-line here:

Obama Tells Turkey: U.S. ‘Not At War With Islam’
Associated Press via MSNBC
April 7, 2009

UK Senior Judge: Nothing “Honorable” About Muslims Abusing And Killing Their Own Families

How many times have we read stories about “honor killings” or forced marriages or abuse of Muslim children? Far too many times.

I used to think that most (if not all Europeans) were simply too scared to speak out in the face of a Muslim culture that is coming to dominate them. Well, over in the United Kingdom, at least one sane, rational voice is speaking out. That voice belongs to Lord Justice Wall, a senior judge in the U.K. judicial system.

According to the Daily Mail Online:

Lord Justice Wall, giving a ruling on a case involving three Muslim children put in the care of white foster parents, said the time had come to ‘re-think the phrase honour killing’.

He had heard that a mother had set fire to one of her three children and tried to burn down the house where they lived in an attempt to incriminate her sister-in-law.

The sister-in-law ‘presented a problem to the family’ and had fled the home after being beaten and her first child murdered by her husband, the mother’s brother.

The judge said: ‘The message from this case, which must be sent out loud and clear, is that this court applies a tolerant and human rights based rule of law: one which… regards parents as equals and the welfare of the child as paramount.

‘That is the law of England, and that is the law which applies in this case. Arson, domestic violence and potential revenge likely to result in abduction or death are criminal acts which will be treated as such.’

He said the activities brought to light by the case had ‘nothing to do with any concept of honour known to English law’.

‘They are acts of simply sordid, criminal behaviour and a refusal to acknowledge them as such.’

Wow! Those are some strong words and they are exactly the words that needed to be said. Two things to note:

1. Abuse and killing of family members has “nothing to do with any concept of honour known to English law.”

2. The acts are “of simply sordid criminal behaviour.”

That is stripping the issue down to the bare-bones essentials. Islamics who abuse and kill their own family members have no place in the civilized society of the West. That much is clear from point Number 1.

Point Number 2 serves as a reminder that moral relativism has no place in the application of laws and that all laws must be applied equally to all people across the board. As such, Muslims who abuse and kill their own family members should not be considered as adherents to a different set of beliefs, but merely common criminals who need to be held accountable and punished for their crimes.

How bad can it get? Read on:

The mother of the children – a girl aged 11 and boys of nine and five – is 32 and serving a five-year jail sentence for arson.

One of her brothers had contracted a second marriage to a woman in Pakistan who came to England in 2003 pregnant with her first child.

That child was taken to hospital aged 27 months suffering from multiple injuries and died.

It was not known the motivation for the killing but among the injuries on the child were signs of chronic sexual abuse.

A 27-month-old child. That’s not even three years. What motivates a person to physically harm a defenseless little human being like that?

I went to school here in the West and we were never taught to do anything like that. In fact, we were taught that such behavior is simply evil and that those who engage in such actions should be severely punished.

But, in certain Muslim cultures, such behavior is acceptable and encouraged and when it happens, is justified under Sharia law.

Now, I know some Muslims out there will complain that these people do not represent mainstream Islam. But my response to this complaint is that instead of berating people like me, they should go after these abusers and murderers and tell them to stop claiming to be acting in the name of Islam.

The people of Europe would do very well to listen to the admonitions of Lord Justice Wall. Maybe it’s not too late yet.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Senior Judge Condemns Use Of The Word ‘Honour’ To Describe Abuse And Murder Within Muslim Families
Daily Mail Reporter
March 16, 2009

Gitmo Prisoners Defend ‘Blessed’ 9/11 Attack

Read this one carefully. Understand that terrorists like these five are the people that Barack Obama wants to defend with civil rights. Terrorists like this are people that liberals want to set free. Terrorists like this are the people that leftists all over the world claim are simply “misunderstood.”

From CNN:

Five Guantanamo prisoners accused in the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on the U.S. staunchly defended their actions, calling the operation “blessed” and “great” and the accusations against them “badges of honor.”

The military commission set up to hear the men’s cases at the Guantanamo Bay inmate facility received the signed document Thursday, and a military judge ordered its release on Monday.

The five are members of the al Qaeda terror network. Mohammed, who has taken credit for planning the attack, and the four other prisoners call themselves members of the 9/11 Shura Council.

“With regards to these nine accusations that you are putting us on trial for; to us, they are not accusations. To us they are badges of honor, which we carry with pride. Many thanks to God, for his kind gesture, and choosing us to perform the act of Jihad for his cause and to defend Islam and Muslims,” the response stated.

And Barack Obama thinks that people like this can be negotiated with?

More:

Quranic verses were cited in the filing, and the men underscored their defense of “oppressed” Muslims.

“Our religion is a religion of fear and terror to the enemies of God: the Jews, Christians and pagans. With God’s willing, we are terrorists to the bone.”

“We ask from God to accept our contributions to the great attack, the great attack on America, and to place our nineteen martyred brethren among the highest peak in paradise,” the response said, in reference to the al Qaeda militants who hijacked the airplanes that crashed into the World Trade Center’s twin towers in New York, the Pentagon in Washington, and a field in Pennsylvania.

Would any leftist libs out there care to explain why you all are so hot on defending and/or releasing terrorists like these five? Or maybe you can explain why Barack Obama thinks that the Taliban can be reasoned with?

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Gitmo Prisoners Defend ‘Blessed’ 9/11 Attack
CNN
March 10, 2009

Obama’s Afghan Folly: Talks With The Taliban?

History will look back on these times and identify the key events that shaped the world. One of those events will be the recent announcement by Barack Obama that he intends to talk to the Taliban. Yes, the same Taliban that helped to plan and carry out the September 11, 2001 attacks that killed 2,996 innocent poeple.

Obama made the announcement in an interview with the New York Times this past weekend and already the experts are coming out and saying how foolish such a policy is.

From Reuters:

Obama, in an interview with the New York Times newspaper published on its website on Saturday, expressed an openness to adapting tactics in Afghanistan that had been used in Iraq to reach out to moderate elements there.

“Obama’s comment resemble a dream more than reality,” said Waheed Mozhdah, an analyst who has written a book on the Taliban.

“Where are the so-called moderate Taliban? Who are the moderate Taliban?” asked Mozhdah, who was an official in both the Taliban and the Karzai governments.

“‘Moderate Taliban’ is like ‘moderate killer’. Is there such a thing?”, asked writer and analyst Qaseem Akhgar.

Apparently, the reality of extremists like the Taliban are completely lost on Obama and his cronies.

Here is a recap of what the Taliban did to the people of Afghanistan:

The Afghan people have been the primary victims of Taliban misrule, since the Taliban came to power in 1996. The Taliban militia was formed in 1994, in response to human rights abuses by other warring factions in Afghanistan. By 1996, the Taliban had captured Kabul, and, with claims to religious as well as political authority, began a reign of terror. The Taliban have made the Afghan people the unwilling hosts of foreign armed terrorists, who have exploited and endangered the Afghan people, and made Afghanistan a pariah in the world community.

This fact sheet outlines documented atrocities and human rights abuses committed by the Taliban against the Afghan people.

Massacres

The Taliban have massacred hundreds of Afghan civilians, including women and children, in Yakaolang, Mazar-I-Sharif, Bamiyan, Qezelabad, and other towns. Many of the victims of these massacres were targeted because of their ethnic or religious identity.

Massacre at Yakaolang: January 2001

Taliban forces committed a massacre in Yakaolang in January 2001. The victims were primarily Hazaras. The massacre began on January 8, 2001, and continued for four days. The Taliban detained about 300 civilian adult males, including staff members of local humanitarian organizations. The men were herded to assembly points, and then shot by firing squad in public view. According to Human Rights Watch, about 170 men are confirmed to have been killed. According to Amnesty International, eyewitnesses reported the deliberate killing of dozens of civilians hiding in a mosque: Taliban soldiers fired rockets into a mosque where some 73 women, children and elderly men had taken shelter.

Massacre at Robatak Pass: May 2000

The May 2000 massacre took place near the Robatak pass. 31 bodies were found at one site, of these, 26 were positively identified as civilians. The victims were Hazara Shi’as. Massacre in Bamiyan: 1999 When the Taliban recaptured Bamiyan in 1999, there were reports that Taliban forces carried out summary executions upon entering the city. According to Amnesty International, hundreds of men, and some instances women and children, were separated from their families, taken away, and killed. Human Rights Watch reports that besides executing civilians, the Taliban burned homes and used detainees for forced labor.

Massacre in the Shomaili Plains: July 1999

Human Rights Watch reports that a Taliban offensive here was marked by summary executions, the abduction and disappearance of women, the burning of homes, destruction of property, and the cutting down of fruit trees. According to a report by the U.N. Secretary General on November 16, 1999, “The Taliban forces, who allegedly carried out these acts, essentially treated the civilian population with hostility and made no distinction between combatants and non-combatants.”

Massacre in Mazar-I-Sharif: August 1998

In August 1998, the Taliban captured Mazar-I-Sharif. There were reports that between 2,000 and 5,000 men, women and children — mostly ethnic Hazara civilians — were massacred by the Taliban after the takeover of Mazar-I-Sharif. During the massacre, the Taliban forces carried out a systematic search for male members for the ethnic Hazara, Tajik, and Uzbek communities in the city. Human Rights Watch estimates that scores, perhaps hundreds, of Hazara men and boys were summarily executed. There were also reports that women and girls were raped and abducted during the Taliban takeover of the city.

Massacre in Mazar-I-Sharif: September 1997

Retreating Taliban forces summarily executed Hazara villagers near Mazar-I-Sharif, after having failed to capture the city. Amnesty International reported that the Taliban massacred 70 Hazara civilians, including children, in Qezelabad, near Mazar-I-Sharif. There were also reports that the Taliban forces in Faryab province killed some 600 civilians in late 1997.

Other Massacres:

On at least two occasions, according to Human Rights Watch, the Taliban killed delegations of Hazara elders who had attempted to intercede with them.

Human Rights Abuses Against Women and Girls

Taliban rule has been particularly harsh for Afghan women and girls. Taliban restrictions against women and girls are widespread, institutionally sanctioned, and systematic in Taliban-controlled areas of Afghanistan.

— Girls are formally prohibited from attending school.

— Women are prohibited, with very few exceptions, from working outside the home, and are forbidden to leave their homes except in the company of a male relative. These restrictions are devastating for the thousands of Afghan war widows, who have reportedly been reduced to selling their possessions or begging to feed their families.

— The Taliban have significantly reduced women’s access to health care, by decreeing that women can only be treated by women doctors.

— The Taliban threaten and beat women to enforce the Taliban’s dress code for women.

The Taliban and the Humanitarian Situation

The humanitarian situation in Afghanistan is grim. Twenty years of internal armed conflict, and four years of devastating drought have contributed to this situation, but the Taliban have made an already grave situation much worse, holding the Afghan people hostage to their political agenda.

— The Taliban do not share the hardships they have imposed on the Afghan people, and they have done nothing to alleviate these hardships.

— The Taliban have not only failed to provide security, food, and shelter for the Afghan people, but they have disrupted the efforts of international relief agencies to deliver desperately needed food and medical supplies to the Afghan people.

— The Taliban have harassed international and Afghan aid workers.

— On October 16, the Taliban seized control of two UN warehouses, containing more than half the World Food Program’s wheat supply for Afghanistan. The UN Security Council on October 16 demanded that the Taliban should cease obstructing aid destined for the Afghan people.

The Taliban and Islam

The Taliban have imposed their own interpretation of Islam on the Afghan people.

— Taliban interpretations of Islam are not widely shared in the Muslim world.

— Taliban words and actions misrepresent Islam.

— The Taliban have used Islam as a cloak to practice ethnic cleansing in Afghanistan.

— Warning against “converting our countries into another Afghanistan,” Saudi writer Turki Al Hamad, writing in As-Sharq Al Awsat, put it this way:”…[under the Taliban], Islam would be relegated from a world religion with a global human and civilized mission to a Taliban-like dogma that bans pigeon breeding, long hair, kite flying, and listening to music…. That, at a time when the rest of the world is de-coding the genome, experimenting with cloning, inventing information chips, exploring outer space and tackling the wonders of laser beams and infra-red radiation. If we want to have an impact on today’s world, the only way to do so is by interacting with it.”

Destruction of Afghan Culture

The Taliban have perverted Afghan customs, tradition, and religious practice for their own narrow political interests.

— The Taliban and their foreign armed militant “guests” have set about destroying traditional Afghan culture.

— They have prohibited all forms of music, and even traditional recreation, such as kite flying.

— They have looted and destroyed the historical and cultural patrimony of the Afghan people — the Kabul Museum, formerly one of the finest museums in the region, is largely empty; the centuries-old Buddhist statues in Bamiyan have been reduced to rubble.

— They have deprived the people of Afghanistan both their history, and their future.

Documenting Taliban Abuses

— Several non-government organizations maintain web sites documenting Taliban abuses.

— The web site of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (www.rawa.fancymarketing.net) maintains a gallery of still photos and video clips documenting massacres, beatings, and executions by the Taliban. The documentary photos and videos were clandestinely made by Afghan women to provide evidence of Taliban atrocities. One video clip on this site documents the public execution of an Afghan mother of seven.

— Several human rights organizations maintain web sites documenting human rights abuses by the Taliban and other factions in the Afghan conflict. Human Rights Watch (www.hrw.org) and Amnesty International (www.amnesty.org) provide extensive documentation of these abuses.

Exactly how delusional is Barack Obama if he actually believes that such extremists can be rationally negotiated with?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama’s Call On Moderate Taliban Useless – Analysts
Sayed Salahuddin
Reuters
March 9, 2009

Hassan Chop: The Faces Of Those Who Were Killed For ‘Honor’

Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs has a blog entry entitled Losing Our Heads ……

Within this blog entry you will find pictures. Pictures of girls and young women who were full of beauty, life, potential and free spirit. These same girls were killed by members of their own families simply because the girls did not want to submit to the sexist, male-dominated restrictions that Islam places on women.

And our so-called mainstream media has not any courage whatsoever to report these killings. They will report so-called hate-crimes, but never would anyone at the likes of NBC, ABC, CBS or CNN nor at the Washington Post or New York Times ever want to “offend” the Muslims.

Look upon their faces here:

Losing Our Heads …………….
Pamela Geller
Atlas Shrugs
February 15, 2009

Take for instance, the case of Aasiya Z. Hassan, wife of Muzzammil Hassan who launched the pro-Muslim Brdiges TV network in an effort to promote a positive image of Islam. He beheaded his wife because she “disobeyed him.”

I’m sure Islam looks really appetizing to women right now.

From the Buffalo News:

Aasiya Hassan had filed for divorce and obtained an order of protection on Feb. 6, barring her husband from their home in Orchard Park, police said.

“There had been problems before — there had been prior incidents of physical abuse,” said Corey Hogan, whose law firm, Hogan Willig, represented Aasiya Hassan in the divorce proceeding.

Hogan said discussions were being held about continuing arrangements for the couple’s two children, ages 4 and 6, and two older children, ages 17 and 18, from Muzzammil Hassan’s previous marriage.

The family lived on Big Tree Road in Orchard Park.

“Obviously, this is the worst form of domestic violence possible,” Erie County District Attorney Frank A. Sedita III said Friday.

But you will never hear about this on any of the major networks.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Orchard Park Businessman Charged In Beheading Of Wife
Fred O. Williams and Gene Warner
Buffalo News
February 14, 2009

Obama: More Concerned About Terrorists’ Rights Than Justice For Americans

This story speaks for itself. Most of the families that met Obama on Friday, February 6, 2009, have said that the meeting was more window dressing than anything else.

You see, these were families of victims of the USS Cole attack and of the 9/11 attacks. They want to know why Obama favors terrorists’ rights over justice for terrorists’ victims and their families.

From Lara Jakes at Town Hall:

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs says Obama will discuss his plans for Guantanamo Bay with the terror victims’ families. Many of those families disagree with the president’s plan to close the detention center.

Obama is now reviewing the system, and likely to scrap it, to make sure the 245 suspects who remain there are given international and U.S. legal rights.

Like I said, this story speaks for itself.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama Concerned About Justice For Terror Suspects
Lara Jakes
TownHall.com
February 6, 2009

Tony Blankley Exposes The Arrogant Hypocrisy Of The Leftist Media And Its Dem Supporters

Look for many differences between the previous eight years and the next four years. Of course, you already knew to do that. But look at what issues are going to be tackled differently and why.

One of those issues is censorship and the manner in which Old Media deals with the Chief Executive. Tony Blankley’s new book, American Grit, contains a chapter about just this and it would be a good idea to look into it further.

Writing for Town Hall, Brent Bozell takes us on a guided tour of that chapter and what it means:

He reminds us that during the Bush years, “the media blissfully endangered America’s safety for the pleasure of striking a blow at a president it despised. … Even when there’s no allegation of wrongdoing, it seems that many newspapers today take a perverse pride in revealing U.S. intelligence secrets.”

It’s these repeated actions by papers like the New York Times exposing and destroying our anti-terrorist programs (and in the case of the Los Angeles Times, tattling about how our government encouraged defectors from Iran’s nuclear program) that cries out for censorship, Blankley argues. It’s not enough to hope these newspapers will now cooperate with the Obama administration when it wants them to keep its actions secret.

In other words, leftist publications like the New York Times had absolutely no problem with endangering Americans by revealing our secrets when it would be an embarrassment to President Bush to do so, but they will help President Obama by keeping his darkest secrets safe.

More:

Blankley trenchantly recounts left-wing hacks like CNN’s Jack Cafferty and Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter finding the seeds of a “full-blown dictatorship” in the Bush White House, and snarling Joe Conason claiming Bush was headed toward an “authoritarian peril.” Blankley dismisses these claims for showing “an embarrassing ignorance of the history of executive authority.”

There were numerous shrill cries from the leftist media that the Bush Administration was engaging in some sort of censorship of the news. But it never happened. There is no evidence for it whatsoever. In fact, the evidence argues the opposite.

But what is real censorship? Let’s take a look at the Presidents whom Barack Obama idolizes and see what their records on censorship were:

President Lincoln shut down dozens of newspapers and imprisoned their editors. During World War I, President Woodrow Wilson’s Sedition Act banned “uttering, printing, writing or publishing any disloyal, profane, scurrilous or abusive language about the United States government or the military.” At least 75 periodicals were banned by the postmaster general. During World War II, President Franklin Roosevelt gave FBI director J. Edgar Hoover the power to censor all news or communications entering or leaving America. Blankley notes FDR repeatedly asked his attorney general, Francis Biddle, “When are you going to indict the seditionists?”

Let’s see, Lincoln, FDR and Wilson. Yep, Barack Obama holds those three in high regard. Think the leftists at the NYT will report on this? Probably not.

But was there any kind of censorship during the Bush years?

By contrast, during those allegedly dictatorial Bush years, our national newspapers proudly published op-eds by founders and supporters of terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

Dictatorial censorship? Hardly. It was the working of a Free Press and President Bush allowed it to happen despite shrill claims from the left and pathetic attempts at re-writing history.

What is Obama’s view on this?

President Obama has already signaled that it isn’t Hamas chieftains he wants to silence, but conservative talk-radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh.

Who do these leftists think they are kidding? Obama and his followers are clearly on the path of allowing America’s enemies every chance to stand up and speak while simultaneously trying to censor private American citizens.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Tony Blankley’s Untimely Cry
Brent Bozell III
TownHall.com
January 28, 2009

Obama Bad-Mouths The United States On Muslim Television

I don’t recall anywhere in the Presidential Oath of Office where it says the President should speak ill of America and Americans. But that is exactly what Obama has done.

In his first formal television interview, given on a Muslim cable channel, Obama insulted the American people and trashed the United States. And he didn’t even have the courage to do it here on American soil.

From the Associated Press:

“My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy,” Obama said. “We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect.”

The interview complemented the new administration’s first efforts to reach out to Arab leaders in the region, who have been wary at best of U.S. efforts to broker peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Obama said he felt it important to “get engaged right away” in the Mideast and had directed Mitchell to talk to “all the major parties involved.” His administration would craft an approach after that, he said in the interview.

“What I told him is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating,” Obama told the interviewer.

No! The United States starts by taking our own interests into account first while the Islamics start by launching terrorist attacks to kill innocent people. President Obama needs to remember that we Americans do not like being trashed by our own leaders! And we certainly don’t like our leaders bad-mouthing us to those who have sworn to kill us as infidels!

Does Obama really believe that showing this kind of weakness to the terrorists is going to make them start liking us? If he does, he is going to get a rude awakening. It will encourage more attacks agains the U.S. and now that Obama has gutted our security infrastructure, such attacks are going to be even more devastating.

What about all those Muslim schools in Saudi Arabia that teaches hatred of the Jews and all things non-Muslim? Did Obama not get the briefing about them?

What about all the terrorist attacks launched against U.S. interests over the years? Does Obama really want to forgive a group of people who will not accept forgiveness nor accept any peace that they themselves have not dictated?

And what about Israel? If Obama has such a low opinion of America and Americans, what does he think about Israel?

The president reiterated the U.S. commitment to Israel as an ally, and to its right to defend itself. But he suggested that Israel has hard choices to make and that his administration would press harder for it to do so.

“We cannot tell either the Israelis or the Palestinians what’s best for them. They’re going to have to make some decisions. But I do believe that the moment is ripe for both sides to realize that the path that they are on is one that is not going to result in prosperity and security for their people,” he said.

Really? You mean that Hamas isn’t going to achieve peace by launching rockets at Israeli civilians? Why hasn’t Obama taken that message to Hamas? It seems that Obama is going to follow the failed policy of Bill Clinton and resurrect the Camp David Accords in which Israel gives up everything, the Palestinians gain everything and then the terrorists launch new attacks against Israel.

Barack Obama is turning out to be the most ignorant President in the history of the United States! And he has only been in office for one week!

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama Gives First TV Interview To Arabic Network
Associated Press via Fax News
January 27, 2009

Obama And The Coming Collapse Of National Security

Dissident Dingo over at Resistance Day blog has penned a terrific essay about Barack Obama’s weakness on national security and what it will mean to us over the next four years.

Here are some excerpts:

Barack Obama will be tested on the national security front. The tests will not come only from the Islamic terrorists either. Russia, North Korea, Iran and the Chinese all smell weakness. They see an inexperienced, un-tested and immature President who seems to believe that the power of his personality will be enough to keep our enemies under control. He believes that the entire world is no different than the American media who love him.

He is wrong, of course, but will he realize this when the test comes?

Obama will be tested and he will handle it badly. Biden knows this and his comments were a plea for the media to stay in the tank and support him…no matter what. Remember, Obama is “too big to fail”. Obama is “historic”. We cannot let the first affirmative action President be a mediocre one can we?

As conservatives, we take the defense of our country seriously. National security is serious business and failure, in this day and age, means a lot of dead Americans. That is why we don’t vote for the likes of Obama. We do not vote for leftists who view national security (and all other Constitutional functions of government) as a waste of time and resources that should be used for liberal, unconstitutional functions of government.

Wasn’t it the misguided former Democrat Senator John Edwards who called the War on Terror a “bumper sticker”?

No, John. “Hope” is a bumper sticker. The War on Terror was President Bush’s response to an ideology that has the declared objective of wiping us out. And they’re still out there. They’re weaker and they enjoy far less support from countries that they could once count on when the Clinton Administration was napping. But, they’re still committed.

This essay is very powerful and telling. I hope that all members of the Republican National Committee read it and that the GOP takes it heart in 2010.

You can access the complete column on-line here:


National Security And The Coming Barackalypse

Dissdent Dingo
Resistance Day Blog
January 23, 2009

Not By Word But By Action: Obama Declares The Terrorists Have Won

No, you didn’t misread the headline. Barack Obama has effectively given the terrorists what they wanted: rest, respite and a chance to regroup. Obama has ordered that all anti-terrorism policies, the same policies that kept the United States safe from attack for the past seven years, be halted.

I have no doubt that terrorists all over the world are rejoicing at the opportunity Obama is giving them to rearm and plan new attacks without any hindrances on them.

Writing for the Washington Post, Dana Priest has this to say:

President Obama yesterday eliminated the most controversial tools employed by his predecessor against terrorism suspects. With the stroke of his pen, he effectively declared an end to the “war on terror,” as President George W. Bush had defined it, signaling to the world that the reach of the U.S. government in battling its enemies will not be limitless.

Key components of the secret structure developed under Bush are being swept away: The military’s Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, facility, where the rights of habeas corpus and due process had been denied detainees, will close, and the CIA is now prohibited from maintaining its own overseas prisons. And in a broad swipe at the Bush administration’s lawyers, Obama nullified every legal order and opinion on interrogations issued by any lawyer in the executive branch after Sept. 11, 2001.

And the interesting thing about those interrogations was that Congressional leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid knew about them back in 2002 but never said a word. They waited until it was politically profitable for them to speak out which means they didn’t really care about the methods used, they only cared about how to grab more political power as a result of them.

More:

As the CIA recruited young case officers, polygraphers and medical personnel to work on interrogation teams, the agency’s leaders asked its allies in Thailand and Eastern Europe to set up secret prisons where people such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh could be held in isolation and subjected to extreme sleep and sensory deprivation, waterboarding and sexual humiliation. These tactics are not permitted under military rules or the Geneva Conventions.

Neither is killing innocent civilians in the pursuit of the fanatical religious cause of Islam. That is why they are called terrorists. They are not covered under the Geneva Convention. Anyone care to guess why Dana Priest and the Washington Post deliberately misled their readers like that?

Obama has seriously deluded himself and his followers into thinking that the terrorists are going to be swayed by the relaxing of our security measures. Islamic thinking says that when one shows weakness, one should be attacked even more rigorously. Obama should know this having attended a Muslim school when he was a teenager. The weakness he is showing the terrorists will come back to haunt us, even moreso than September 11, 2001.

We, the people, should be ready to hold Obama accountable when that terrible day comes.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Bush’s ‘War On Terror’ Comes To A Sudden End
Dana Priest
Washington Post
January 23, 2009

And read about what happens when terrorists are freed. This show’s why Obama and his followers are completely delusional about ending the anti-terroism policies. The terrorists are not going to stop trying to attack us just because we start being nice to them:

Ex-Gitmo Detainee Joins Al-Qaida In Yemen
TownHall.com
January 23, 2009