Tag: al Qaeda

Obama/Syria: Declaring War By Executive Order

On By kingsjesterIn Politics4 Comments

obamacarterSo, here we are, Americans. Sitting on the precipice, looking down into the Abyss, of a possible World War III. President Barack Hussein Obama’s Smart Power! has been a colossal failure, if its purpose was to keep the peace in the Middle East. If  The purpose of Obama’s Smart Power was replacing Moderate Muslim Leadership with Radical Islamacists, through violent revolution, the persecution of Middle Eastern Christians, and the loss of scores of human lives, then Smart Power! has been an unqualified success.

Now the Leader of America’s Regime, wants to involve us in the Civil War happening in Syria, because their president has been accused of launching a chemical attack against his own citizens.

Just a thought: If he goes through with this, what is Obama going to say if it turns out that al Qaeda launched the chemical attack? “Oops?”

A big problem, besides the fact that we do not need to be doing this, is,  the fact that Obama is Declaring War by Executive Order.

As you may know, if you took 9th Grade Civics class, like I did, Congress must authorize war.

Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution says “The Congress shall have the power … To declare war…”

Article II, Section 2 says “The president shall be commander in chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States…”

Congress declared war:

In 1812 against Great Britain (War of 1812)

In 1846 against Mexico (Mexican-American War)

In 1898 against Spain (Spanish-American War)

In 1917 against Germany and Austria-Hungary (World War I)

In 1941 against Japan, Germany, Italy; in 1942 against Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania (World War II)

Undeclared Wars:

There have been numerous undeclared wars in which the United States was engaged in military operations, but here are a few examples:

President John Adams asked Congress for legislation to protect American shipping, as American relations with France had deteriorated in 1798 to the point where the French navy had seized more than 300 American commercial ships. This was after the start of the French Revolution and was during a time of war between England and France.

President Thomas Jefferson asked Congress to pass legislation to protect American commercial ships against pirates from Tripoli in 1802; President James Madison did the same in 1815 against pirates from Algeria; the U.S. Congress authorized President James Monroe to use armed vessels to protect American shipping from pirates in the Caribbean and Latin American waters and he issued the Monroe Doctrine in 1823.

There were numerous wars fought against Native Americans.

U.S. military forces were used numerous times such as Commodore Perry carrying a letter from U.S. President Millard Fillmore to the Emperor of Japan and the opening of Japan to U.S. trade in 1853-1854; in the Boxer Rebellion in China 1900-1901; wars in Central America, etc.

Obama might want to consider what he is about to do, bypassing Congress and waging war on Syria. Public Support for “The Syrian War” is three times lower than it was for the beginning of the War in Vietnam.

And, with good reason. As I posited the other day, there are no good guys in the Syrian Situation.

The certifiable Former Democratic Congressman from Ohio, Dennis Kucinich,  spoke to thehill.com, the other day. And, it a moment of remarkable (for him) lucidity, he claimed,

Airstrikes on Syria would turn the U.S. military into “al Qaeda’s air force,” former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) told The Hill.

The outspoken anti-war activist said any such action would plunge the United States into another war in the Middle East and embolden Islamist militants fighting Bashar Assad’s regime.

“So what, we’re about to become Al Qaeda’s air force now?” Kucinich said. “This is a very, very serious matter that has broad implications internationally. And to try to minimize it by saying we’re just going to have a ‘targeted strike’ — that’s an act of war. It’s not anything to be trifled with.”

The comments echo warnings from Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who voted against legislation to arm the Syrian rebels earlier this year by saying such a move would boost al Qaeda.

Kucinich also said President Obama would be violating the Constitution if he doesn’t get congressional approval before taking any military action in Syria.

Kucinich retired last year after 16 years in the House when his Cleveland district was redrawn and he lost his primary. He led the fight against President George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq and joined nine other lawmakers in suing Obama over his intervention in Libya two years ago.

Kucinich raised doubts about rebel forces’ allegations that Assad’s forces used poison gas to kill more than 1,300 people last week. He said the administration is “rushing” to what could becoming “World War Three” based on questionable evidence.

“This is being used as a pretext,” he said. “The verdict is in before the facts have been gathered. What does that tell you?”

Why, Mr. Kucinich, it tells this American, that Obama has been ready to do this for a long while now, quite possibly since the start of Arab Spring.

Back in May of 2011, during the zenith of Arab Spring, foxnews.com reported that

After popular uprisings overthrew regimes in Tunisia and Egypt, the Syrian government has used deadly force to quell demonstrations inside its borders. So far, the U.S. has shown no inclination to intervene militarily there, as it has to stop the advances of strongman Muammar al-Qaddafi in Libya.

But Syria pushed the envelope over the weekend, with reports showing that Palestinians living in Syria were bused to the border with Israel in the Golan Heights, where demonstrations and violence broke out.

Asked about the incident, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney accused the government of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad of “inciting” the protests to distract attention from demonstrations in Syria — a tactic he claimed would not work on the U.S.

Carney said Tuesday the U.S. was looking at additional measures to push Syria toward listening to its people.

“We are looking at ways to put pressure on the Syrian government … to pressure it so it ceases the violence against its own people and engages its people in legitimate dialogue,” Carney said.

While the White House is insisting that this action would not be “regime change”, it certainly sounds like Obama has been in favor of getting Syria “in line” with the other Middle Eastern countries, who were, like Egypt, taken over by Radical Muslim Groups, like the Muslim Brotherhood.

The concern raised by Kucinich is very real.If Obama’s strategy is to open the way for the Radical Muslim “Rebels” to take over Syria, with our help, then wouldn’t that be aiding and “abetting the enemy”?

Radical Muslims hate us, “The Great Satan”. What is Obama hoping to gain by lobbing a few strategic air strikes in Assad’s general direction? Certainly not fear.

As Democrat Presidents Carter and Clinton found out the hard way. Radical Muslims are not easily intimidated. 

After Carter’s failed Foreign Policy  debacles,it took President Ronald Reagan shooting a missile into Anwar Gadhafi’s bedroom, which shut him up for 25 years, to convince the Muslims that we meant business.

And, later on, it was President Clinton’s less-than-effective Foreign Policy ,which was the primary factor in the escalation of the growth of Radical Islam, leading up to the worst Terrorist Attack ever perpetrated on American Soil, on that horrible day of September 11, 2001.

Unfortunately for us, I do not believe that Obama has ever studied Carter and Clinton’s failed Foreign Policy efforts, because he sure does seem determined to repeat them.

God protect us.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

Obama’s Report of Al-Qaeda’s Death Was Greatly Exaggerated

On By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

muslimredbeardYou know, for a “dead” group, al-Qaeda seems pretty lively to me.

According to the Wall Street Journal…

The State Department Sunday extended some embassy closures for the rest of the workweek, citing a need to “exercise caution” and take “appropriate steps” to protect American diplomats, local employees and visitors. Officials said the move wasn’t an indication that the U.S. had any new intelligence about the suspected plot or plots.

The high level of concern from U.S. officials underscores what many in the intelligence world have long warned. While al Qaeda’s central leadership may be weakened, the rest of the group has morphed into smaller entities and dispersed, which has made the threat harder to predict and track. This process was accelerated by the turmoil of the Arab Spring.

Officials briefed on the latest intelligence say the new warnings show that al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, is as determined as ever to attack the West, but it is unclear whether the group is as capable of following through as it was before the Central Intelligence Agency and U.S. military’s Joint Special Operations Command started targeting its leaders in Yemen in parallel campaigns.

The deaths of Osama bin Laden and other top al Qaeda officials in Pakistan has fueled U.S. confidence that al Qaeda’s core leadership can’t mount attacks on the U.S. and that U.S. drone strikes there could be phased out over time. But al Qaeda affiliates, the most active and lethal of which is AQAP, have shown themselves to be increasingly capable and autonomous organizations, making it harder for the U.S. to track and target their leaders.

A major concern for the U.S. is AQAP’s chief bomb-maker—a Saudi citizen named Ibrahim al-Asiri—who is thought to still be at large and has been active both experimenting with new bomb designs and training other bomb-makers, according to American officials and analysts.

Beyond Yemen, al Qaeda in Iraq has reconstituted itself. Its branch in Syria is drawing in hundreds of foreign recruits each month. And in Mali, al Qaeda-linked fighters fled French warplanes and commandos and have set up a rudimentary base in the Libyan Desert outside Paris’s reach.

“The problem we face today is there are probably more al Qaeda cells and affiliates across the Arab world in 2013 than there have ever been before because of the chaos that’s followed the Arab Spring,” said Bruce Riedel, a Central Intelligence Agency veteran and now director of the Brookings Intelligence Project

About al-Qaeda...

The group was founded in approximately 1988 by Osama bin Laden, Abdullah Azzam, and Muhammad Atef — the latter a native Egyptian and a onetime member of the terrorist group Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Al Qaeda’s overriding objective is to establish a worldwide caliphate governing all the earth via the dictates of Islamic Law. Crucial to the achievement of that goal is the destruction of America by any means necessary. As one Al Qaeda Training Manual makes explicitly clear, violence is the preferred method of dealing with the enemy:

“Islamic governments have never and will never be established through peaceful solutions and cooperative councils. They are established as they [always] have been by pen and gun, by word and bullet, by tongue and teeth.”

The manual further exhorts jihadists to “pledge … to make their [the infidels’] women widows and their children orphans … to slaughter them like lambs and let the [rivers] flow with their blood.”

Al-Qaeda has been in Yemen for a number of years.

Al Qaeda’s presence in Yemen is due to the with the country’s domestic conflicts and the convoluted agendas of former President Ali Abdullah Saleh. In the 1994 civil war, in which Saleh’s government defeated the Southern Rebels, Saleh and his loyal generals organized the mujahideen, some of whom would split off and form Al-Qaeda in Yemen, into fighting units against southerners who the jihadis already thought were godless socialists.

In the process of destroying an uprising of Zaydi Shiites in Yemen’s north known as the Houthi rebellion, Saleh backed the bujilding of Salafi schools linked with Al-Qaeda in Houthi territory, thus turning his political threat into a sectarian battle. Even during the war in Afghanistan against the Soviets, Yemeni leaders urged the country’s young men to travel to Afghanistan to fight.

Despite cooperating with them at the beginning, jihadis would find Saleh an undependable ally. Salah would readily cozy up to them when it suited his political goals, then he would just as readily turn on Al-Qaeda as soon as the benefits from doing so were presented to him, usually in the form of American aid money. His turncoat nature, in the years following the Cole bombing, led to the Yemeni Government arresting the group’s members, using deadly force against them, and allowing the U.S. intelligence services to operate in the country.

Saleh was an unfaithful friend to the United States in the war on terrorism, as well. His friendship ran hot and cold, even at one point refusing the FBI access to prisoners complicit in the USS Cole bombing.

Then, over the past decade, the U.S. supported a totally inept and totally corrupt Yemeni security apparatus When Yemeni security forces would somehow actually manage a victory in its fight against Al-Qaeda, it would lose to “escapes” twice as many Terrorists as it would capture.

Meanwhile, our American President, instead of providing troops to protect our American Embassies, has simply closed them, showing weakness to the barbarians, which is never a good idea.

I recognize the need to protect Americans, so more are not butchered, as Americans were on that fateful night in Benghazi. However. If this Administration does not show some backbone soon, America will continue to be in the same situation that England was under Neville Chamberlain.

We will be negotiating from a position of weakness.  

This is Smart Power?

Until He Comes,

KJ

Barack Hussein Obama and the Never-Ending “Arab Spring”

On By kingsjesterIn Politics6 Comments

obamaegypt7613“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” –  United States President Barack Hussein Obama, September 25, 2012

On June 4, 2009, President Barack Hussein Obama (peace be upon him) in a speech to the Muslim World at the University of Cairo, in Cairo, Egypt, said the following

I’ve come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. I know there’s been a lot of publicity about this speech, but no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have this afternoon all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, “Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.” (Applause.) That is what I will try to do today — to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Now part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I’m a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities — (applause) — it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality. (Applause.)

I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President, John Adams, wrote, “The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims.” And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, they have served in our government, they have stood for civil rights, they have started businesses, they have taught at our universities, they’ve excelled in our sports arenas, they’ve won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers — Thomas Jefferson — kept in his personal library. (Applause.)

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. (Applause.)

On May 19, 2011, speaking before an “Amen Chorus” in the State Department, (with the cameras on, naturally) Obama spoke about the marvelous Arab Spring, which had just begun…

The question before us is what role America will play as this story unfolds. For decades, the United States has pursued a set of core interests in the region: countering terrorism and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons; securing the free flow of commerce and safe-guarding the security of the region; standing up for Israel’s security and pursuing Arab-Israeli peace.

We will continue to do these things, with the firm belief that America’s interests are not hostile to people’s hopes; they’re essential to them. We believe that no one benefits from a nuclear arms race in the region, or al Qaeda’s brutal attacks. We believe people everywhere would see their economies crippled by a cut-off in energy supplies. As we did in the Gulf War, we will not tolerate aggression across borders, and we will keep our commitments to friends and partners.

Yet we must acknowledge that a strategy based solely upon the narrow pursuit of these interests will not fill an empty stomach or allow someone to speak their mind. Moreover, failure to speak to the broader aspirations of ordinary people will only feed the suspicion that has festered for years that the United States pursues our interests at their expense. Given that this mistrust runs both ways –- as Americans have been seared by hostage-taking and violent rhetoric and terrorist attacks that have killed thousands of our citizens -– a failure to change our approach threatens a deepening spiral of division between the United States and the Arab world.

And that’s why, two years ago in Cairo, I began to broaden our engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect. I believed then -– and I believe now -– that we have a stake not just in the stability of nations, but in the self-determination of individuals. The status quo is not sustainable. Societies held together by fear and repression may offer the illusion of stability for a time, but they are built upon fault lines that will eventually tear asunder.

So we face a historic opportunity. We have the chance to show that America values the dignity of the street vendor in Tunisia more than the raw power of the dictator. There must be no doubt that the United States of America welcomes change that advances self-determination and opportunity. Yes, there will be perils that accompany this moment of promise. But after decades of accepting the world as it is in the region, we have a chance to pursue the world as it should be.

Of course, as we do, we must proceed with a sense of humility. It’s not America that put people into the streets of Tunis or Cairo -– it was the people themselves who launched these movements, and it’s the people themselves that must ultimately determine their outcome.

Not every country will follow our particular form of representative democracy, and there will be times when our short-term interests don’t align perfectly with our long-term vision for the region. But we can, and we will, speak out for a set of core principles –- principles that have guided our response to the events over the past six months:

The United States opposes the use of violence and repression against the people of the region. (Applause.)

The United States supports a set of universal rights. And these rights include free speech, the freedom of peaceful assembly, the freedom of religion, equality for men and women under the rule of law, and the right to choose your own leaders -– whether you live in Baghdad or Damascus, Sanaa or Tehran.

Last Wednesday, Obama was forced to speak about the revolution in Egypt, leading to his fellow travelers, President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood’s, being thrown out of power by the Egyptian people…

The United States is monitoring the very fluid situation in Egypt, and we believe that ultimately the future of Egypt can only be determined by the Egyptian people. Nevertheless, we are deeply concerned by the decision of the Egyptian Armed Forces to remove President Morsy and suspend the Egyptian constitution. I now call on the Egyptian military to move quickly and responsibly to return full authority back to a democratically elected civilian government as soon as possible through an inclusive and transparent process, and to avoid any arbitrary arrests of President Morsy and his supporters. Given today’s developments, I have also directed the relevant departments and agencies to review the implications under U.S. law for our assistance to the Government of Egypt.

The United States continues to believe firmly that the best foundation for lasting stability in Egypt is a democratic political order with participation from all sides and all political parties —secular and religious, civilian and military. During this uncertain period, we expect the military to ensure that the rights of all Egyptian men and women are protected, including the right to peaceful assembly, due process, and free and fair trials in civilian courts.  Moreover, the goal of any political process should be a government that respects the rights of all people, majority and minority; that institutionalizes the checks and balances upon which democracy depends; and that places the interests of the people above party or faction. The voices of all those who have protested peacefully must be heard – including those who welcomed today’s developments, and those who have supported President Morsy. In the interim, I urge all sides to avoid violence and come together to ensure the lasting restoration of Egypt’s democracy.

As you can tell, Scooter is not a happy camper.

Now, I’m just spitballin’ here…but, shouldn’t the President of the United States of America be standing for Freedom, not for Oppression?

Is this never-ending Arab Spring in the Middle East a direct result of his June 4, 2009 suck-up to the Muslim World?

Is Meghan McCain useless?

If you will remember, gentle reader, at the same time Obama was kissing the posteriors of the Muslim World, his State Department Spokespeople were telling us that the “War on Terror” was over with, and there were no such thing as Islamic Terrorist Attacks any more, just “Man-Caused Disasters”.

The kissing up to the Muslim World continues in Obama’s Second Term as, just in the past several months, Obama has hosted representatives off the MB, the ISNA, and Radical Islamic Cleric, Sheik Abdullah bin Bayyahm, who had actually been barred from entering our country!

Shouldn’t Obama be protecting us from our sworn enemies, not inviting them to OUR White House and hugging their necks?

While Obama’s DOJ and IRS have been harassing Christian and Conservative Groups alike, Obama has been welcoming those who wish to behead us Infidels, with open arms.

 

Think about something, did the gigantic bonfire, known as Arab Spring, happen under President Ronald Reagan? Did it happen under President George W. Bush? NO. 

The responsibility for what is going on in the Middle East and its potential threat to our allies in Israel and to this sacred land, as well, lies on the narrow shoulders of President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm).

Smart Power! has proved to be anything but.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Oh, What a Tangled Web We Weave: Syria, al-Qaeda, and Benghazi

On By kingsjesterIn Politics4 Comments

obamamyworkDo you remember, right after Obama assumed the office of  President of the United States of America, his minions in the State Department announced that they would no longer refer to “The War on Terror” and that “Muslim Terrorists Attacks”, would be referred to as “man-caused disasters?

Over the next 5 years, Obama would bungle his way though his dealings with those who would kill us without a second thought, embracing them as “our new allies”, inviting them to the White House, and trying to convince our greatest ally, Israel, God’s Chosen People, to give half of their country to them.

Now, the Kenyan Kaiser is arming them.

Per The Los Angeles Times,

The training and Obama’s decision this month to supply arms and ammunition to the rebels have raised hope among the beleaguered opposition that Washington ultimately will provide heavier weapons as well. So far, the rebels say they lack the weapons they need to regain the offensive in Syria’s bitter civil war.

The tightly constrained U.S. effort reflects Obama’s continuing doubts about getting drawn into a conflict that already has killed more than 100,000 people and the administration’s fear that Islamic militants now leading the war against Assad could gain control of advanced U.S. weaponry.

The training has involved fighters from the Free Syrian Army, a loose confederation of rebel groups that the Obama administration has promised to back with expanded military assistance, said a U.S. official, who discussed the effort anonymously because he was not authorized to disclose details.

The number of rebels given U.S. instruction in both countries since the program began could not be determined, but in Jordan, the training involves 20 to 45 insurgents at a time, a rebel commander said.

U.S. special operations teams selected the trainees over the last year when the U.S. military set up regional supply lines to provide the rebels with nonlethal assistance, including uniforms, radios and medical aid.

The two-week courses include training with Russian-designed 14.5-millimeter anti-tank rifles, anti-tank missiles, as well as 23-millimeter anti-aircraft weapons, according to a rebel commander in the Syrian province of Dara who helps oversee weapons acquisitions and who asked his name not be used because the program is secret.

The training began last November at a new American base in the desert in southwest Jordan, he said. So far, about 100 rebels from Dara have attended four courses, while rebels from Damascus have attended three courses, he said.

“Those from the CIA, we would sit and talk with them during breaks from training and afterward, they would try to get information on the situation inside Syria,” he said.

The rebels were promised enough armor-piercing anti-tank weapons and other arms to gain a military advantage over Assad’s better-equipped army and security forces, said the Dara commander.

Here’s were it gets…frightening, sickening, and…traitorous…

According to the United Nations,

The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group was listed on 6 October 2001 pursuant to paragraph 8(c) of resolution 1333 (2000) as being associated with Al-Qaida, Usama bin Laden or the Taliban for “participating in the financing, planning, facilitating, preparing or perpetrating of acts or activities by, in conjunction with, under the name of, on behalf or in support of”, “supplying, selling or transferring arms and related materiel to” or “otherwise supporting acts or activities of” Al-Qaida (QE.A.4.01), Usama bin Laden and the Taliban.

The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) is an Al-Qaida (QE.A.4.01) affiliate. It was created in 1995 by Libyans who had fought in Afghanistan and had plotted against the Government of Libya. LIFG participated with the Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group (QE.M.89.02) in planning the May 2003 bombings in Casablanca, Morocco, that killed over 40 people and injured more than 100. LIFG has also been linked to the 2004 attacks in Madrid, Spain.

In 2002, Al-Qaida leader Zayn al-Abidin Muhammad Hussein (QI.H.10.01), also known as Abu Zubaydah, was captured in Faisalabad, Pakistan, accompanied by at least three LIFG operatives and a fourth individual, the former head of the Sanabel Relief Agency Limited (QE.S.124.06) in Kabul, Afghanistan, who was also known to have ties to LIFG. LIFG commanders, including Abu Yahya al-Liby and the now-deceased Abu al-Laith al-Liby, have occupied prominent positions within Al-Qaida’s senior leadership.

On 3 November 2007, LIFG formally merged with Al-Qaida. The merger was announced via two video clips produced by Al-Qaida’s propaganda arm, Al-Sahab. The first clip featured Usama bin Laden’s (deceased) deputy, Aiman Muhammed Rabi al-Zawahiri (QI.A.6.01), and the second featured Abu Laith al-Liby, who then served as a senior member of LIFG and a senior leader and trainer for Al-Qaida in Afghanistan.

LIFG is believed to have several hundred members or supporters, mostly in the Middle East and Europe. Since the late 1990s, many LIFG members have fled from Libya to various Asian, Arabian Gulf, African, and European countries, particularly the United Kingdom. It is likely that LIFG has maintained a presence in eastern Libya and has facilitated the transfer of foreign fighters to Iraq.

By now, you’re saying, “But, KJ…that’s Libya, not Syria.”

Bless be the ties that bind…

On November 27, 2011, the UK Telegraph reported…

Abdulhakim Belhadj, head of the Tripoli Military Council and the former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, “met with Free Syrian Army leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey,” said a military official working with Mr Belhadj. “Mustafa Abdul Jalil (the interim Libyan president) sent him there.”

The “covert operation” was immediately laid bare when a rival Libyan rebel brigade detained Belhaj at Tripoli airport, accused him of travelling on a fake passport, and declared they would jail the senior military leader.

Only a letter from the country’s interim president was enough to persuade them to let him leave the country.

The meetings came as a sign of a growing ties between Libya’s fledgling government and the Syrian opposition. The Daily Telegraph on Saturday revealed that the new Libyan authorities had offered money and weapons to the growing insurgency against Bashar al-Assad.

Mr Belhaj also discussed sending Libyan fighters to train troops, the source said. Having ousted one dictator, triumphant young men, still filled with revolutionary fervour, are keen to topple the next. The commanders of armed gangs still roaming Tripoli’s streets said yesterday that “hundreds” of fighters wanted to wage war against the Assad regime.

According to information found at discoverthenetworks.org, in early 2012, President Barack Hussein Obama signed an intelligence finding that authorized U.S. support for the Syrian rebels, among whom are many heavily-armed, al Qaeda-affiliated jihadists. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Gen. Martin Dempsey (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and then-CIA director David Petraeus unanimously back a plan to arm the Syrian rebels. (Even though, Obama and his entire Administration would vehemently deny it later.)

Also in early 2012, the CIA started working with Arab governments and Turkey to sharply increase the supply of arms shipments to Syrian rebels. (Source: The New York Times (March 25, 2013)

On the 11th anniversary of the most devastating Terrorist Attack ever perpetrated on American Soil, masterminded by Osama bin Laden and carried out by members of al-Qaeda, the U.S. Embassy Compound in Benghazi Libya, was overrun by Muslim Terrorists who killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other brave Americans.

Since then, there has been a lot of speculation as to the cause of the attack, and why Obama and his Administration tried to convince the world that an unknown Youtube video caused the Middle East Turmoil. David Horowitz’ discoverthenetworks.org tells us that there may have been a difference cause…

Frank Gaffney, founder and president of the Center for Security Policy, writes that after Muammar Qaddafi’s fall from power in the summer of 2011, “[Christopher] Stevens [is] appointed ambassador to the new Libya run by [Abdelhakim] Belhadj [leader of the al Qaeda-linked Libyan Islamic Fighting Group] and his friends.” At this point, Stevens is tasked with finding and securing “the immense amount of armaments that had been cached by the dictator around the country and systematically looted during and after the revolution.” Stevens’ mission is to help transfer “arms recovered from the former regime’s stocks to the ‘opposition’ in Syria,” where, “as in Libya, the insurgents are known to include al Qaeda and other Shariah-supremacist groups, including none other than Abdelhakim Belhadj.” These Syrian insurgents, organized under the banner of the “Free Syrian Army,” are fighting to topple the rule of their nation’s president, Bashar al-Assad. Benghazi is a logical place in which to station Stevens for this task, since, as Gaffney notes, it is “one of the places in Libya most awash with such weapons in the most dangerous of hands.”

Stevens’ duties include not only the transfer of arms, but also the recruitment of fighters willing to personally go into combat against the Assad regime in Syria. Aaron Klein writes that according to Middle Eastern security officials: “The U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi … actually serve[s] as a meeting place to coordinate aid for the rebel-led insurgencies in the Middle East.” Specifically, the building serves as a forum for U.S. collaboration with Arab countries—particularly the Turkish, Saudi and Qatari governments—on how to best support the Mideast’s various insurgencies, especially the rebels opposing Assad in Syria. Many of the fighters who are recruited are jihadists hailing from Libya and elsewhere in North Africa, and they are dispatched to Syria via Turkey (the lead coordinator of aid to the Free Syrian Army) with the help of CIA operatives stationed along the border shared by those two countries. One of the most noteworthy jihadists making his way to Syria is Abdelhakim Belhadj, former leader of the al Qaeda-linked Libyan Islamic Fighting Group that brought down Qaddafi in Libya before subsequently disbanding.

This type of covert activity “may help explain why there was no major public security presence at what has been described as a ‘consulate,’” says Aaron Klein. “Such a presence would draw attention to the shabby, nondescript building that was allegedly used for such sensitive purposes.”

Why are we arming those who want to “kill the Great Satan”? Is is naivete or insanity? Is Obama simply “standing with the Muslims”? Is he doing this in the “name of the Prophet”?

Can we Impeach him, yet?

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Bosnia…Libya…Syria

On By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

clintoncartoonIn the late 1990s, President Bill “Bubba” Clinton got our country involved in another nation’s civil war.

On August 15, 1996, Ted Galen Carpenter, Vice-President for Defense and Foreign Policy Studies at the Cato Institute and the author of Beyond NATO: Staying Out of Europe’s Wars. wrote a Foreign Policy Brief titled “The Domino Theory Reborn:  Clinton’s Bosnia Intervention and the “Wider War” Thesis.”

Here is an excerpt.

President Clinton’s assertion that the U.S.-led NATO mission in Bosnia is essential to prevent a wider European war is erroneous. Two of the wider war scenarios–Serbia as a runaway expansionist power like Nazi Germany and the prospect that the Bosnian conflict could ignite a continental conflagration just as a Balkan incident sparked World War I–are so far-fetched that they should be dismissed out of hand.

The other two scenarios–that copycat aggressors elsewhere in Europe would be emboldened by a NATO failure in Bosnia and that a Bosnia-style war could erupt in the southern Balkans, especially in Kosovo and Macedonia–have greater validity. But the success or failure of the Bosnia mission will have little impact on such dangers. Conflicts in other parts of Europe arise from local conditions and historical factors, and the belligerents will continue to pursue their unique agendas. War in the southern Balkans would not be a matter of the Bosnian conflict’s “spreading.” The disputes over Kosovo and Macedonia involve different grievances and, largely, a different set of potential adversaries.

The wider war thesis is merely a refurbished domino theory. Not every armed conflict in Europe is destined to lead to a massive war that would affect important American security interests.

…President Clinton repeatedly defended his decision to send American troops to Bosnia by insisting that if the United States and its NATO allies did not take steps to solidify the fragile peace in that country, they would risk the outbreak of a “wider war.” Such a conflict would threaten overall European stability, which is deemed important to America’s own security and well-being. Thus, in addition to any moral imperative to stop the carnage in Bosnia, the United States had no choice but to assume a leadership role to suppress the fighting, lest Europe descend into chaos for the third time this century.

The president used that reasoning in a November 1995 letter to House Speaker Newt Gingrich shortly before the signing of the Dayton accord.

This Administration, and that of previous Democratic and Republican Presidents, have been firmly committed to the principle that the security and stability of Europe is of fundamental interest to the United States. The conflict in Bosnia is the most dangerous threat to European security since the end of World War II. If the negotiations fail and the war resumes, as it in all probability would, there is the very real risk that it could spread beyond Bosnia, and involve Europe’s new democracies as well as our NATO allies. Twice this century, we paid a heavy price for turning our backs to conflict in Europe.

Secretary of State Warren Christopher had made a similar argument earlier, contending, “Twice in this century we have had to send our soldiers to fight in wars that began in Central Europe.” On another occasion he insisted that unless the Dayton peace accord succeeded, the Bosnian conflict could someday involve “the rest of Europe.” James Steinberg, director of policy planning at the State Department, was equally apocalyptic. “Without U.S. leadership in Bosnia, we would face the imminent danger of a widening war that could embroil our allies, undermine NATO’s credibility, destabilize nearby democracies, and drive a wedge between the United States and Russia.”

The president and his advisers tend to be vague, how-ever, about how the bloodletting in Bosnia could lead to a wider European war. Proponents of the U.S.-led peace enforcement mission act as though that danger were self-evident, but a careful examination suggests that most of the wider war scenarios are implausible.

That conclusion has important implications beyond the administration’s Bosnia policy, for the assumption that small conflicts will usually lead to larger ones is a crucial premise underlying Washington’s global network of security commitments. A proactive U.S. policy (including a military presence) in such regions as Europe, East Asia, and the Persian Gulf is supposedly essential because it preserves stability and makes any armed disruption less likely. Without that stabilizing U.S. role, the argument goes, there will be a proliferation of minor conflicts, any one of which may ignite a regional war that will entangle the United States. But if the wider war thesis is invalid with regard to Bosnia, serious questions ought to be raised about its validity elsewhere–indeed, about the intellectual foundation of America’s overall security strategy.

Current United States President Barack Hussein Obama, already made history repeat itself, by getting us involved in the civil war in Libya, which led to a Radical Muslim government being installed, and eventually, 4 brave Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, being savagely murdered.

Now…it appears that Obama is about to double down…

The Daily Caller’s Ariel Cohen reported yesterday that…

The White House said Friday it does not plan to send U.S. troops into Syria, despite offering aid to rebel groups fighting President Bashar al-Assad.

“Nobody has asked us to [go into Syria]. The Syrian opposition does not think that it’s a good idea,” Ben Rhodes, current Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communication, said during a White House press conference Thursday evening. ”We certainly don’t think it’s in our national interest to send U.S. troops.”

The White House distinguished their actions in the Middle East from those of the previous administration’s, expressing a reluctance to enter a scenario similar to the 2003 Iraq War.

“We need to be humble here about our ability to solve the problem in Syria,” Rhodes said. “I think recent history teaches us that even when you have U.S. troops on the ground, you’re not necessarily going to be able to prevent violence amongst civilian populations. We saw that in Iraq, for instance. And at the same time, when U.S. troops are on the ground, that involves us in a much more dramatic way of making us the issue instead of the interest of the country where we are.”

Instead of sending U.S. troops into Syria, Obama plans to help opposition groups on the ground.

“Our stated national policy is for Bashar Al-Assad leave power,” Rhodes said. “It is our preference that this be done politically, but we are going to continue supporting those in Syria who are working for a post-Assad future.”

Rhodes said that the best course of action in Syria is to strengthen a “moderate opposition that would be able to represent the broader Syrian public” by providing aid to the rebel groups, but the administration has yet to comment on the specifics of the aid.

“While I understand the interests, we’re just not going to be able to get into that level of detail about the type of resistance that we provide,” Rhodes said.

“I’m not going to be able to inventory the types of support that we’re going to provide to the [Syrian Military Council], but I’d point to my previous answers — suffice it to say that a decision has been made about providing additional direct support to the SMC to strengthen their effectiveness,” Rhodes said. “This is more a situation where we’re just not going to be able to lay out an inventory of what exactly falls under the scope of that assistance, other than to communicate that we have made that decision.”

Critics opposing U.S. involvement in Syria claim that the White House can never be completely sure who receives American aid within the rebel groups — or how they will use it.

“It is unclear what national security interests we have in the civil war in Syria,” Kentucky Republicans Sen. Rand Paul wrote in a CNN.com piece warning against American intervention in the Middle East. “It is very clear that any attempt to aid the Syrian rebels would be complicated and dangerous, precisely because we don’t know who these people are.”

As I first reported in May, there is just one problem with arming these “Freedom Fighters”. It’s the same “problem” that we faced in Libya.

BBC.co.uk reported the following on April 10th…

The leader of the al-Nusra Front, a jihadist group fighting in Syria, has pledged allegiance to the leader of al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Abu Mohammed al-Jawlani said the group’s behaviour in Syria would not change as a result.

Al-Nusra claims to be have carried out many suicide bombings and guerrilla attacks against state targets.

On Tuesday, al-Qaeda in Iraq announced a merger with al-Nusra, but Mr Jawlani said he had not been consulted on this.

Al-Nusra has been designated as a terrorist organisation by the US.

Debates among Western leaders over whether to arm Syria’s rebels have often raised the concern of weapons ending up in the hands of groups such as al-Nusra.

“The sons of al-Nusra Front pledge allegiance to Sheikh Ayman al-Zawahiri,” Mr Jawlani said in a recording released on Wednesday.

But Mr Jawlani said al-Nusra had not been consulted on the merger with al-Qaeda in Iraq and insisted his group would not change its stance in Syria.

The al-Nusra statement assured Syrians that the “good behaviour” they had experienced from the front on the ground would continue unchanged, the BBC’s Jim Muir reports from neighbouring Lebanon.

Mr Jawlani said that the oath of allegiance to Zawahiri “will not change anything in its policies”, our correspondent adds.

In his biography, “The Audacity of Hope”, written by Bomber Bill Ayers, Obama says that,

I will stand with them [Muslims] should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.

That ugly direction is the Middle East…again.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Smart Power! Vs. Jihad: Guess Which is Winning?

On By kingsjesterIn Politics8 Comments

muslimredbeardBack on May 20, 2011, President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) made a speech before a select group (and the television cameras, of course) gathered in the offices of the U.S. State Department. The purpose of the speech was to outline his wonderful Foreign Policy of Smart Power! and how he intended to had the ongoing “Arab Spring” and the growing tension between Israel and the Palestinians.

…The question before us is what role America will play as this story unfolds. For decades, the United States has pursued a set of core interests in the region: countering terrorism and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons; securing the free flow of commerce and safe-guarding the security of the region; standing up for Israel’s security and pursuing Arab-Israeli peace.

We will continue to do these things, with the firm belief that America’s interests are not hostile to people’s hopes; they’re essential to them. We believe that no one benefits from a nuclear arms race in the region, or al Qaeda’s brutal attacks. We believe people everywhere would see their economies crippled by a cut-off in energy supplies. As we did in the Gulf War, we will not tolerate aggression across borders, and we will keep our commitments to friends and partners.

Yet we must acknowledge that a strategy based solely upon the narrow pursuit of these interests will not fill an empty stomach or allow someone to speak their mind. Moreover, failure to speak to the broader aspirations of ordinary people will only feed the suspicion that has festered for years that the United States pursues our interests at their expense. Given that this mistrust runs both ways –- as Americans have been seared by hostage-taking and violent rhetoric and terrorist attacks that have killed thousands of our citizens -– a failure to change our approach threatens a deepening spiral of division between the United States and the Arab world.

And that’s why, two years ago in Cairo, I began to broaden our engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect. I believed then -– and I believe now -– that we have a stake not just in the stability of nations, but in the self-determination of individuals. The status quo is not sustainable. Societies held together by fear and repression may offer the illusion of stability for a time, but they are built upon fault lines that will eventually tear asunder.

So we face a historic opportunity. We have the chance to show that America values the dignity of the street vendor in Tunisia more than the raw power of the dictator. There must be no doubt that the United States of America welcomes change that advances self-determination and opportunity. Yes, there will be perils that accompany this moment of promise. But after decades of accepting the world as it is in the region, we have a chance to pursue the world as it should be.

Unfortunately for the safety of our nation, Obama’s policy of Smart Power! has been, and continues to be, an utter failure. The four brave Americans who were savagely murdered the night of September 11, 2012 at the US Embassy Compound in Benghazi, Libya would agree, if they were still alive  to do so.

Obama’s sucking up to the Radical Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East has not won the barbarians over to our side. They still want to destroy “The Great Satan”.

And, judging from the following statement, I would wager to say, that they believe that our President is a wuss.

Why should they be different?

Al-Qaeda’s military chief in Yemen warned Americans in an audio message posted online Sunday that the Boston bombings revealed a fragile security as he urged Muslims to defend their religion.

Qassim al-Rimi, the military chief of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, said making bombs such as the ones used in the twin blasts in Boston in April, is within “everyone’s reach”.

“The Boston events… and the poisoned letters (sent to the White House), regardless of who is behind them, show that your security is no longer under control, and that attacks on you have taken off and cannot be stopped,” he said, in the message entitled: “A letter to the American people.”

“Every day you will be hit by the unexpected and your leaders will not be able to defend you,” warned the man whose organisation is considered by Washington the world’s most dangerous Al-Qaeda branch.

Rimi said the killing of Al-Qaeda’s founder Osama bin Laden in May 2011 and top Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in September 2011, had not ended the struggle.

“Have you eliminated the jihadist groups that have spread everywhere after they had only been in Afghanistan? Today, they are in your land or close to it,” he warned.

To the Muslims in the United States, he said: “We encourage you to carry on with this way, be steadfast in your religion.

“Carry out your obligations, defend your religion and follow in the footsteps of those who supported their religion and Ummah (Muslim nation) while they are in their enemy’s den,” he said.

The “religion of peace”, my hindquarters.

Perhaps Obama should send that Federal Attorney from Tullahoma, Tennessee, who is warning us all about talking mean about Muslims on the Internet,  over to Yemen to talk to this Mad Mullah.

I am sure that the attorney would be just as effective as Smart Power!

God protect us.

Until He comes, KJ

Al-Qaeda Supports McCain in 2008, Syrian Rebels Pledge Loyalty to al-Qaeda in April, McCain Visits Syrian Rebels on Memorial Day.

On By kingsjesterIn Politics4 Comments

johnmccainSenator John McCain (R-AZ), spent his Memorial Day in Syria, visiting with the Rebel Forces there.

Isn’t Progressivism wonderful? 

From thehill.com:

According to the Daily Beast, which first reported the visit, McCain met with Gen. Salem Idris, the leader of the Supreme Military Council of the Free Syrian Army, and spent a few hours in the country after entering through Turkey.

McCain, a leading critic of the Obama administration’s policy towards Syria, has been calling for the U.S. to provide lethal aid to opposition forces seeking the ouster of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The administration has resisted calls from lawmakers to arm the rebels over fears those weapons could fall into the hands of Islamist or anti-U.S. elements. Many Syrian rebel groups have been linked to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

Last week, however, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a bill to arm the Syrian opposition, a bipartisan rebuke to the White House.

Supporters of the measure say it is necessary to help end a conflict which has already claimed 80,000 lives, according to some estimates.

The White House, though, has continued to focus on a diplomatic solution to ease Assad from power.

There is just one problem with arming these “Freedom Fighters”. It’s the same “problem” that we faced in Libya.

BBC.co.uk reported the following on April 10th…

The leader of the al-Nusra Front, a jihadist group fighting in Syria, has pledged allegiance to the leader of al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Abu Mohammed al-Jawlani said the group’s behaviour in Syria would not change as a result.

Al-Nusra claims to be have carried out many suicide bombings and guerrilla attacks against state targets.

On Tuesday, al-Qaeda in Iraq announced a merger with al-Nusra, but Mr Jawlani said he had not been consulted on this.

Al-Nusra has been designated as a terrorist organisation by the US.

Debates among Western leaders over whether to arm Syria’s rebels have often raised the concern of weapons ending up in the hands of groups such as al-Nusra.

“The sons of al-Nusra Front pledge allegiance to Sheikh Ayman al-Zawahiri,” Mr Jawlani said in a recording released on Wednesday.

But Mr Jawlani said al-Nusra had not been consulted on the merger with al-Qaeda in Iraq and insisted his group would not change its stance in Syria.

The al-Nusra statement assured Syrians that the “good behaviour” they had experienced from the front on the ground would continue unchanged, the BBC’s Jim Muir reports from neighbouring Lebanon.

Mr Jawlani said that the oath of allegiance to Zawahiri “will not change anything in its policies”, our correspondent adds.

But, wait…there’s more.  It turns out, that, per the BBC, that Juan McAmnesty, by supporting the al-Qaeda-sponsored Syrian Rebels…was just returning the favor:

Supporters of al-Qaeda have said they would prefer Republican candidate John McCain to win the US election because he is more likely to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In a message broadcast on the password-protected al-Hesbah site, the group said they would also welcome a pre-election terror attack on the US because that would make a McCain win more likely.

In an endorsement that will not be welcomed by Mr McCain’s flagging campaign, the group said that if al-Qaeda wants to exhaust the US, militarily and economically, the “impetuous” Republican presidential candidate is the better choice.

“This requires presence of an impetuous American leader such as McCain, who pledged to continue the war till the last American soldier,” the message said.

“Then, al-Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming elections so that he continues the failing march of his predecessor, Bush.”

“If al-Qaeda carries out a big operation against American interests,” it said, “this act will be support of McCain because it will push the Americans deliberately to vote for McCain so that he takes revenge for them against al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda then will succeed in exhausting America till its last year in it.”

Mark Salter, a senior McCain adviser, had no immediate comment.

As an official “Wacko Bird”, i.e., Conservative, I would like to say that Progressive Republicans, like John McCain, and his pet dog, Lindsey Graham, are one of the reasons that Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) is the President of these United States.

Not only are Progressive Republicans, like “The Sunshine Boys”, and Obama’s golfing buddy, Cryin’ John Boehner, weak and ineffectual, if they had any tes…err…intestinal fortitude whatsoever, that would be jumping on America’s scandal-ridden Administration with both feet. Instead, they’re acting like the wussified Country Club Elite that they are…whether they are reaching across the aisle to arm these Syrian [Muslim] Rebels or trying to pass “Immigration Reform”, which will do nothing but add new Democratic Voters to the rolls.

It’s getting more and more difficult to tell the Republican Leadership from the Democratic Leadership.

Thank the Lord for Conservative Americans like Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin.

Speaking at this year’s Hillsdale College Graduation Commencement, Sen. Cruz said,

…more and more government is not the answer. To say otherwise is to ignore the fact that all major European nations have higher levels of public spending than the United States does, and that all of them are poorer. Human beings are not happiest when they’re taken care of by the state. Areas under the yoke of dependency on government are among the least joyish parts of our society. The story of Julia is not an attractive utopia. We all flourish instead when afforded opportunity, the ability to work and create and accomplish. Economic growth and opportunity is the answer that works.

Sarah Palin, posted on her Facebook Page yesterday, that…

Our military men and women risk their lives to uphold our rights. They deserve better than to have their sacrifice trampled on by people who pretend to have heard nothing, seen nothing, and therefore can say nothing about abusing their power over We the People. Americans deserve better. Certainly our military veterans’ honor deserves better. (By the way, pleading the Fifth while showing no regard for the First is as bold an exercise in adding insult to injury as I have ever seen.)

It is time to declare, “Enough is enough.” It’s time to halt the fundamental transformation of the country our soldiers have given all to preserve.

Straight talk, from Conservative American Leaders like these, is what America needs to hear, not rhetoric about “sharing the wealth” and “social justice”. And, we especially do not need for Vichy Republicans like Juan McAmnesty to continue sucking up to our enemies, foreign and domestic.

The resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC is doing more than enough of that, all by himself.

Until He Comes, 

KJ

Administration Sanctions Remote Control Elimination

On By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

obamabigbroRemember when we were kids, all the science fiction novelists writing about the future being a “brave new world”?

Well, it’s a new world alright. However, with this Administration in charge of it, the word “‘dangerous” has replaced the word “brave”.

NBC News reports

Legal experts expressed grave reservations Tuesday about an Obama administration memo concluding that the United States can order the killing of American citizens believed to be affiliated with al-Qaida — with one saying the White House was acting as “judge, jury and executioner.”

The experts said that the memo, first obtained by NBC News, threatened constitutional rights and dangerously expanded the definition of national self-defense and of what constitutes an imminent attack.

“Anyone should be concerned when the president and his lawyers make up their own interpretation of the law or their own rules,” said Mary Ellen O’Connell, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame and an authority on international law and the use of force.

“This is a very, very dangerous thing that the president has done,” she added.

The memo, made public Monday, provides detail about the administration’s controversial expansion of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects abroad, including those aimed at American citizens.

Among them were Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, who were killed by an American strike in September 2011 in Yemen. Both men were U.S. citizens who had not been charged with a crime.

Attorney General Eric Holder, in a talk at Northwestern University Law School in March, endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans provided that the government determines such an individual poses “an imminent threat of violent attack.”

But the memo obtained by NBC News refers to a broader definition of imminence and specifically says the government is not required to have “clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.”

Glenn Greenwald, a constitutional lawyer who writes about security and liberty for the British newspaper The Guardian, described the memo as “fundamentally misleading,” with a clinical tone that disguises “the radical and dangerous power it purports to authorize.”

“If you believe the president has the power to order U.S. citizens executed far from any battlefield with no charges or trial, then it’s truly hard to conceive of any asserted power you would find objectionable,” he wrote.

The attorney general told reporters Tuesday that the administration’s primary concern is to keep Americans safe, and to do it in a way consistent with American values. He said the administration was confident it was following federal and international law.

“We will have to look at this and see what it is we want to do with these memos,” he said. “But you have to understand that we are talking about things that are, that go into how we conduct our offensive operations against a clear and present danger.”

White House press secretary Jay Carney said that while the government must take the Constitution into account, U.S. citizenship does not make a leader of an enemy force immune from being targeted.

The drone strikes, and now the Justice Department memo, are expected to figure prominently Thursday when the Senate takes up the nomination of John Brennan, the White House counterterrorism adviser and architect of the drone campaign, to lead the CIA.

This Administration’s surveillance on American citizens has been in the works for quite a while..and, it is probably going to be activated domestically as well.

In an article posted on May 12, 2012, rt.com reported that

A leaked US Air Force document stipulates a drone that happens to capture surveillance images of Americans may store them for a period of 90 days. The paper appears to justify spying on citizens, as long as it is “incidental.”

The document accepts that the Air Force may not record information non-consensually; however it does state “collected imagery may incidentally include US persons or private property without consent.”

The report, dated April 23 was discovered by Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists and has been put online.

Data that is accidentally recorded may be stored for a period of 90 days by the Pentagon while it is analyzed to see if the subjects are legitimate targets for state surveillance. The Pentagon may also disseminate this data among other government organizations if it sees fit.

“Even though information may not be collectible, it may be retained for the length of time necessary to transfer it to another DoD entity or government agency to whose function it pertains,” states the document.

In addition, it justifies the gathering of data on domestic targets in certain circumstances. According to the paper, these include surveillance of natural disasters, environmental studies, system testing and training, and counterintelligence and security-related vulnerability assessments.

The document seems to spell bad news for civil liberties, considering the US government passed a bill in February allocating $63 billion to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

If the bill is signed into law it will effectively allow the FAA to fill US skies with drones, a massive 30,000 predicted to be operational in US airspace by 2020.

Over 30 prominent civil rights groups in the US have rounded on the FAA and demanded that it reconsider the legislation and hold a rule-making session to address privacy and safety threats.

“Unfortunately, nothing in the bill would address the very serious privacy issues raised by drone aircraft. This bill would push the nation willy-nilly toward an era of aerial surveillance without any steps to protect the traditional privacy that Americans have always enjoyed and expected,” said the American Civil Liberties Union in response to the legislation.

The bill has sparked fears among Americans that their civil liberties may be under threat, considering that the use of drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan has been extended to carry out attacks on militants.

I remember a movie from the 1980s titled “Real Genius”. A young Val Kimer and a bunch of underage geniuses at a University were working on a super-powered laser that could be shot by a pilot in a space shuttle to assassinate somebody sitting by their pool.

Now, we have unarmed drones, piloted by joystick, like a video game, which can not only be used for 24 hour surveillance on American citizens, but can also be used to eliminate American citizens.

Skynet has become aware.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Did Budget Cuts Lead to Throats Being Cut?

On By kingsjesterIn Politics3 Comments

Evidently, the money designated for Ambassador to Lybia Chris Stevens’ protection had to be used for something more important: like Michelle’s vay-cays or improving Obama’s Golf Game.

Fore!

The Washington Times reports that

Investigators looking for lessons from the fatal terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi might want to start on Capitol Hill, where Congress slashed spending on diplomatic security and U.S. embassy construction over the past two years.

Since 2010, Congress cut $296 million from the State Department’s spending request for embassy security and construction, with additional cuts in other State Department security accounts, according to an analysis by a former appropriations committee staffer.

Rep. Michael Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, made clear Wednesday that congressional staff will be looking into the attack, in addition to a probe by the State Department’s inspector general and another State Department investigation required by federal law.

The cuts to the embassy construction, security and maintenance budget was almost 10 percent of the entire appropriation for that account over those two years, said Scott Lilly, now a scholar at the left-leaning Center for American Progress.

“Anytime we cut that account back, we are putting people’s lives at risk, people who are serving the country” in dangerous places abroad, said Mr. Lilly.

The cuts mean that “a lot of places you’d intended to secure better, you don’t reach” this year, he added.

He said he did not know whether the cuts had impacted security at the Benghazi consulate that was stormed on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks by heavily armed Islamic extremists, who burned down the building and killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

A State Department official told The Washington Times that there was no impact on security in Benghazi from the cuts.

Since 1999, the official said, the department has spent $13 billion on 94 new secure diplomatic facilities “and security upgrades to existing properties that have moved more than 27,000 people into safer, more secure facilities.”

The cuts were the latest in a series of squeezes on State Department spending. Congress has appropriated less money for the department than requested in every year since Fiscal 2007, according to budget figures.

“During both the latter years of the Bush presidency and throughout the Obama presidency, the administration has recommended boosting spending on foreign aid and [State Department] foreign operations, including security, and Congress has always cut it back,” said Philip J. Crowley, a former State Department spokesman.

“There is simply not a constituency on the Hill to increase spending on diplomacy and development. Resources do matter.” said Mr. Crowley, now a fellow at the George Washington University Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication.

In a completely unrelated story (I’m sure), published on July 25, 2012, at AmericanThinker.com:…

…Walid Shoebat published this 37-page booklet entitled “Proof: Huma has Ties to Muslim Brotherhood — Countless Documents Surface” and this was followed up with Tuesday’s update that “Huma Abedin Served on Board with Al-Qaeda Godfather”. Shoebat states that the latest discoveries “include but are not limited to “[p]roof that Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin served on the Board of IMMA from at least 12/02/02 – 9/24/08” and that “Al-Qaeda Godfather Abdullah Omar Naseef served on IMMA’s Advisory Board from at least 12/02/02 – 12/03/03.”

…Besides extensively citing all of Huma Abedin’s family connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and Muslim Sisterhood, Shoebat maintains that “[n]either Huma Abedin, Hillary’s aid [sic] or any major western media even mention what is common knowledge in the Arab circles regarding Hassan Abedin, [and] his connections or activities.” Hassan is Huma’s brother.

Why the virtual silence?

Abedin’s brother had a strong working relationship with Abdullah Omar Naseef and Yusuf Qaradawi. Naseef “chaired other entities considered major security concerns for the United States and ran a charity front for terror.” There is no “six degrees of separation” among these men as has been maintained by the mainstream media. Central to Shoebat’s investigation are the overlapping ties of Abdullah Omar Naseef to a number of Muslim Brotherhood offshoots. One such group WAMY or World Assembly of Muslim Youth maintains that “[t]he Jews are humanity’s enemies: they foment immorality in this world.”

Saleha Abedin, Huma’s mother, through the Sisterhood branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, works to advance the Brotherhood agendas against Western interests and policies. In his report, Shoebat shows the interlocking tentacles among various Muslim Brotherhood members which leave “no doubt that the Muslim Brotherhood is the author and the one setting policies and standards for the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child (IICWC), which Saleha Abedin chairs. IICWC’s ‘official policies include marital rape, child marriage, female genital circumcision and polygamy.'”

In a 16 page letter, written last summer to Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison, Rep. Michele Bachmann wrote:

The concerns about the foreign influence of immediate family members is such a concern to the U.S. Government that it includes these factors as potentially disqualifying conditions for obtaining a security clearance, which undoubtedly Ms. Abedin has had to obtain to function in her position. For us to raise issues about a highly-based U.S. Government official with known immediate family connections to foreign extremist organizations is not a question of singling out Ms. Abedin. In fact, these questions are raised by the U.S. Government of anyone seeking a security clearance.

Of course, nothing ever happened, except for President Obama defending Ms. Abedin, in front of his Muslim guests, at his annual Ramadan Dinner.

Given the fact that the Muslim Terrorists seem to know more about the timing of Administrative Initiatives and inner workings of our government than do most of our elected representatives up on Capitol Hill, as proven by the attack on the Benghazi Consulate, I would say that it may be time to actually investigate Ms. Abedin, and any other Muslims with questionable familial ties, in key Administrative positions in our Government, wouldn’t you?

Benghazi, Dhimmitude, and Liberal Intolerance

On By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

Well, it looks like Obama, Hillary, and their entire Smart Power! team are reluctantly beginning to admit that the attack on the Benghazi, Libya Consulate, which led to the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens, was not the fault of that stupid Youtube Video that nobody has watched.

The New York Times reports that

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday suggested there was a link between the Al Qaeda franchise in North Africa and the attack at the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed the American ambassador and three others. She was the highest-ranking Obama administration official to publicly make the connection, and her comments intensified what is becoming a fiercely partisan fight over whether the attack could have been prevented.

Mrs. Clinton did not offer any new evidence of an Al Qaeda link, and officials later said the question would be officially settled only after the F.B.I. completed a criminal inquiry, which could take months. But they said they had not ruled out the involvement of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb — an affiliate of the international terrorist group with origins in Algeria — in an attack the administration initially described as a spontaneous protest turned violent.

Her remarks added to the administration’s evolving and at times muddled explanation of what happened on the evening of Sept. 11 and into the next morning. Republicans in Congress have accused President Obama of playing down possible terrorist involvement in the midst of a re-election campaign in which killing Osama bin Laden and crippling Al Qaeda are cited as major achievements.

Mrs. Clinton made her remarks at a special United Nations meeting on the political and security crisis in the parts of North Africa known as the Maghreb and the Sahel, particularly in northern Mali, which has been overrun by Islamic extremists since a military coup helped lead to the division of that country this year. Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb has long operated in the region, she said, and was now exploiting a haven in Mali to export extremism and terrorist violence to neighbors like Libya.

“Now with a larger safe haven and increased freedom to maneuver, terrorists are seeking to extend their reach and their networks in multiple directions,” Mrs. Clinton told leaders assembled at the meeting, including President François Hollande of France and the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon. “And they are working with other violent extremists to undermine the democratic transitions under way in North Africa, as we tragically saw in Benghazi.”

And, even though the truth about the extreme adherents to the “religion of peace” has been revealed, that doesn’t mean that the Liberal Main Street Media are going to give up their dhimmitude easily.

 Newsbusters.org has the story:

The New York Post reported Egyptian-American columnist Mona Eltahawy has been arrested for defacing an anti-Muslim ad in the New York subway system. The video shows her spraying pink paint on the ad while a supporter of the ad tries to block her. She’s a journalist for censorship.

Eltahawy, a former Reuters correspondent, has been a recent favorite of CNN and MSNBC’s weekend morning shows to discuss Egypt, and she often smears together the Islamist “right wing” and the American right wing, as she did on Melissa Harris-Perry just 11 days ago :

ELTAHAWY: We [Egyptians] have a president who is trying to establish his position somewhere in the middle and we have a group that is trying to establish themselves on the right wing. And you`re having a similar situation in the U.S. We are coming up to elections now in less than two months. There is a right wing fringe there as well. So, you`ve got a right wing and a right wing. Both minorities, both trying to provoke people and a whole lot of people with very, very, sometimes legitimate grievances, but sometimes utterly senseless grievances, being caught in the middle.

Eltahawy was even featured on the September 15 NBC Nightly News decrying America’s long-term support for Egyptian dictators. Here’s how the New York Post characterized the subway fight:

“Mona, do you think you have the right to do this?” said Pamela Hall, holding a mounted camera as she tried to block the barrage of spray paint.

“I do actually,” Eltahawy calmly responded. “I think this is freedom of expression, just as this is freedom of expression.”

Hall then thrusts herself between Eltahawy’s spray paint and the poster.

Eltahawy — an activist who has appeared on MSNBC and CNN — engaged her in an odd cat-and-mouse dance, spraying pink every time she had an opening.

“What right do you have to violate free speech,” Hall pleaded.

“I’m not violating it. I’m making an expression on free speech,” an increasingly agitated Eltahawy shot back.

“You do not have the right!” Hall said.

“I do actually and I’m doing it right now and you should get out of the way! Do you want paint on yourself,” Eltahawy shot back.

As the poster defender bobbed and weaved to get in the paint’s way, Eltahawy mocked: “That’s right, defend racism.”

Eltahawy appeared in the typically long segments on the Harris-Perry show on April 28, July 1, and September 15, and also appeared on Up With Chris Hayes on June 24. Just in September, Eltahawy was featured in seven interviews about Egypt just from September 11 to 13, including two appearances on Anderson Cooper 360 (the seven interviews would not count replays).

Former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill wrote

Indeed it is evident that Christianity, however degraded and distorted by cruelty and intolerance, must always exert a modifying influence on men’s passions, and protect them from the more violent forms of fanatical fever, as we are protected from smallpox by vaccination. But the Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance. It was originally propagated by the sword, and ever since, its votaries have been subject, above the people of all other creeds, to this form of madness.

…civilisation is confronted with militant Mahommedanism. The forces of progress clash with those of reaction. The religion of blood and war is face to face with that of peace. Luckily the [true] religion of peace [Christianity] is usually the better armed.

The 44th President of the United States said in his speech to the UN General Assembly on Tuesday that

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.

After observing the intentional dhimmitude of Ms. Eltahawy and President Obama, I’m reminded of two quotes, one famous , one not so famous:

Churchill, when speaking about the Nazis:

An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile hoping it will eat him last.

Me, about Liberals:

Isn’t it funny how those who claim to be the most tolerant among us…are actually the least tolerant of all?