Terrorism

-By Warner Todd Huston

Columbia University announced last week that its Graduate School of Journalism is awarding its highest award to America's enemies, Al-Jazeera TV.

The university is awarding Al-Jazeera with its journalism award for the Arab-centric mid eastern "news" it has produced. Al-Jazeera is apparently being recognized for "singular journalism in the public interest."

"Al Jazeera English has performed a great service in bringing the English-speaking world in-depth coverage of the turmoil in the Middle East," said Nicholas Lemann, dean of Columbia's Graduate School of Journalism.

So, once again we have a leftist American university turning its back on America this time to award its top honors to a foreign TV service whose goal includes the daily denunciation of the United States of America.

One has to wonder if there were awards given by American universities for the Nazi Party's newspapers or radio broadcasts during WWII? Were there great American awards given the U.S.S.R.'s Pravda or Izvestia during the Cold War, even? Yet here we are in the middle of a war between freedom, liberty, and democracy and the backwards, oppressive forces of radical Islam that Al-Jazeera represents and our publicly supported university is giving great awards to supporters of our enemy.

This is typical of the vapid thinking of the Democrat Party and America's liberals. To them we are the evil that plagues the world. To them we are the monsters. To liberals our enemies need to be awarded and recognized as the better side of the argument.

Last week, Bill O'Reilly tackled this topic and made some great points.

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

Ultra liberal Chris Murphy is trying the Big Con for CT voters. We can call him on it. And we need to do it now.

Chris Murphy's closing argument in his flagging bid for re-election is that he represents the "pragmatic center" of American politics. This is a place he visits only after Labor Day on even numbered years.

I call B.S. on this. Let's count the ways Murphy is far to the Left in American politics--even beyond the usual Nancy Pelosi foot soldier.

Terrorism

Chris Murphy thinks our efforts to keep Americans safe should be micromanaged by lawyers and run in a fashion so as to not to offend foreign press.

Murphy is one of the most vocal opponents of the use of warrantless wiretaps to obtain information to thwart terrorist threats. We do not know the precise manner this past week effort to blow up Jewish houses of worship with mail bombs was foiled, but do we want to hamstring the people who keep us safe? Murphy evidently does.

Worse still, he favored letting the telecom firms that assisted the War on Terror face ruinous lawsuits from lefty lawyers 

Erick Erickson at Red State has more on this point.

Murphy is also one of the firmest opponents of keeping the detention facility at Gitmo open. What he suggests we do with the jihadists we do not know.

Health Care

Chris Murphy has a problem with the health care bill. He doesn;t think it went far enough. He is a strong supporter of the public option. And why?  Because last year he told the Meriden Record Journal  "I'm haven't given up on private insurance" while claiming the public sector could provide the same service better.  

There are tens of thousands of private insurance jobs in CT. What a joy to know our Congressman isn't ready "yet" to have the federal government put them all out of business.   Murphy went to some tony college in the UK for awhile; perhaps he became enamored of the NHS and socialized medicine while over there.

Netroots

If you are an ally of Kos, you are not a Blue Dog, a New Democrat, or a fiscal conservative. You have decided to ally yourself with folks who think the Democratic Party has not yet moved far enough to the Left. 

Chris Murphy was a lead speaker at Kos' Netroots Nation convention. He wants to be the "tip of the spear" advancing the liberal agenda through Congress.

He told MSMBC that after he and his colleagues got past the voters in November they would return with "steel in their spine" ready to cast more tough votes against the wishes of their constituents.

So Murphy is following the playbook. talking left outside the district, talking right inside the district, and planning to do whatever he pleases if he is returned to office.

That, by the way, will be to abandon his work as a House member and start his 2012 senate campaign against Joe Lieberman.  Of course, CT observers have noticed that if Murphy loses tomorrow, he's probably all done for 2012.

Conclusion

There are plenty of Democrats who are going to lose. Many are well meaning and misguided. But as for a toxic cocktail of ambition, ideology and insincerity there are none more deserving of defeat than Connecticut's Chris Murphy. 

If you agree go to www.samforcongress.com 

New figures on the deficit have jarred veteran Wall Street economists. The deficit just posted for April was eighty two billion dollars. That’s over twice what the deficit was just last April. Our total deficit for this year alone is projected to be one point five trillion dollars. The total debt of the United States of America is an astonishing twelve trillion nine hundred thirty billion plus dollars.

The 785 billion dollar ‘stimulus’, that was to keep our republic from sinking into the abyss of depression, didn’t. That is, it didn’t do what Obama and the panic gang said it would. It was a huge pile of freshly minted dollars that was carefully, reverently poured down every wrong hole they could find. Predictably, as with most government initiatives, it didn’t take it long to go wrong… not long and very,very wrong. The government invested in itself and not in the American people. Much of the stimulus money hasn’t even been accounted for, and with the typical layers of government deniability and shifting of responsibility, probably never will.

Our government, in the form of the radical Obama regime, advocates and supervises the confiscation of the treasure of the country to pay for massive entitlements, with which to enslave the American people in a self perpetuating cycle of poverty and debt.

It’s an increasingly dangerous place, this world of ours. The sheer number of muslim illegals in this country would almost guarantee success at some point. Get one hundred low-budget bombers and if only one succeeds they’ve won… or maybe these turkeys are only a blind for deeper embedded terrorist cells that are already here and operational. We shouldn’t congratulate ourselves for stopping them. We need to be so much more vigilant than we have been.

Obama’s mismanagement makes the world situation much more dangerous than it needed to be. We will pay for this one day soon. The Iranian navy is going to try to force us from the Straights of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf, or in the event of the outbreak of hostilities try to sink our ships. Easier said than done I’ll admit, but Iran is not an adversary to take lightly. I assure you the Israelis won’t. No one wants war but this one is on the horizon and I don’t see anything that will mitigate that in any way.

LJDAM (Laser Joint Direct Attack Munitions)

Obama has shifted his policy towards Israel and Iran again and completed supplying Israel with the latest deep penetrating LJDAM bunker buster. Now if he were smart he’d get out of Israel’s way and let them do what they have to do. But Barack Obama isn’t; smart that is. The alternative is a nuclear armed Iran and the very real possibility of nuclear war. Obama’s weak posturing in front of these middle east strongmen and radical fanatics has only succeeded in painting a huge bulls eye on our backs and then expecting nothing to happen.

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2010

My word. This woman was the best qualified person the Massachusetts Democrats could find to represent the Commonwealth? 

If the goal was and the vision in Afghanistan was to go in because we believe the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists, we supported them, I supported that goal. They are gone, They are not there anymore, they are in Yemen and Pakistan.  Lets focus our efforts on where Al Qaeda is."

Perhaps I shouldn;t be surprised at this utterly ignorant statement. After all this is the woman who said her foreign policy qualfications involved a sister who lived overseas,

Maybe I'll check Google Maps to ascertain if one can see Kandahar looking out of a window in Medford. 

Thankfully, the voters have the chance to elect someone with a bit more expertise in national security issues,

As for the specifics of this incredibly bizarre answer,perhaps Captain Sklaver can refute this argument in absentia.  

9/11 happened, and for the next 8 years, Bush made it the sole purpose of his administration to eliminate the risk of terrorists and terrorist acts to the lives of American citizens. 

At the same time, the MSM was relentless and merciless in pointing out his "incompetence" at every turn....

Obama on the other hand, has done nothing but apologized for the "shortcomings" of America, and practically legitimized the hatred of radicals against the United States and he's granted the Nobel Peace Prize.

This is why the right is questioning the President.  Because on top of his showboating there was an attempted terrorist attack on an American plane and when the country looked to him, he was silent.  Not only was he silent, but Janet Napolitano's response, or rather lack thereof exhibited this Administration's indifference to the matter at hand. And that matter is of international terrorism, specifically targeted towards the United States.  It's absolutely mind-boggling that he's got a Secretary of Homeland Security who doesn't want to label terrorist actions as terrorism.

"Eight years ago, a terrorist bomber’s attempt to blow up a transatlantic airliner was thwarted by a group of passengers, an incident that revealed some gaping holes in airline security just a few months after the attacks of Sept. 11. But it was six days before President George W. Bush, then on vacation, made any public remarks about the so-called “shoe bomber,” Richard Reid, and there were virtually no complaints from the press or any opposition Democrats that his response was sluggish or inadequate." (Politico, December 30)

Fast forward to today, and we've got a President more concerned with spending the country right into the ground while countless Americans continue to lose their jobs.  We've got a President more concerned with appeasing int'l observers of America's actions instead of doing what's best for Americans, such as taking the 'War on Terror' seriously

This is why Obama is meeting criticism. 

'DNC spokesman Hari Sevugan said. “That they would use this incident as an opportunity to fan partisan flames…tells you all you need to know about how far the Republican party has fallen and how out of step with the American people they have become.”' (Politico, December 30)

I resent this statement.  Obama is meeting criticism from Republicans now because of his own partisan agenda. Because after the General that HE APPOINTED requested for an increase in troops in Afghanistan, he waited two months to make a decision.  His actions following the request of a surge of troops in Afghanistan is the reason why his silence now is disturbing to many Americans.  Because while hundreds to thousands died fighting in Afghanistan, he was more concerned with getting health care passed.  He was more concerned with political agenda, then doing what was best for America.

This time, his actions did not put American military men in danger.  He put the innocent lives of American CIVILIANS in danger.

And this is why he is met with criticism.

Because, as Congressman Joe Wilson said, Obama lied.  When he said he wanted more transparency and that he would reach across the aisle, he lied.

Politics is more about politics now then it's ever been.  And now it's putting American lives in danger.

At the cornerstone of Bush's presidency was the 'Global War on Terror' which in and of itself displayed Bush's committment to Homeland Security, whereas Obama is off flying around the world talking about an international environmental agreement that he cannot even get the Chinese to sign onto (but that's for another post), and reaching out to ruthless dictators such as Ahmadinejad.

“The shoe bomber was a case in point, where the country has been on alert,” Bush said. “A stewardess on an American Airlines flight -- or a flight attendant on an American Airlines flight was vigilant, saw something amiss, and responded. It's an indication that the culture of America has shifted to one of alertness. And I'm grateful for the flight attendant's response, as I'm sure the passengers on that airplane. But we've got to be aware that there are still enemies to the country. And our government is responding accordingly.”

President Bush did not need to respond immediately because the country knew his stance.  They knew his Administration was addressing the issue head on.... Not Obama, he'd rather cut deals and placate our adversaries.

It’s a sad, very frightening scenario. Something that has late heroes like George S. Patton and Lewis B. ‘Chesty’ Puller, leaders who were warriors, rotating at 78 rpm in their graves.

We have a Four Star General of the United States Army more concerned about ‘diversity’ and political correctness, than in the execution of the world war on terror and combating possible infiltration of our fighting forces by individuals, who may or may not have an affinity for the pernicious evils of militant Islam. It ain’t your daddy’s Army anymore.

They are making special exemptions to allow people into the military who wouldn’t clear receiving barracks ten years ago. We don’t have a  military COMBAT frame of mind in the high command of the armed forces, we have SOCIAL EXPERIMENTATION on a grand scale. Political correctness of the sort that allowed a Major Malik Nidal Hasan to not only slip through the cracks, but  simply ignore glaring warnings. Not just a few, there were many. Where were the people who should have taken note and taken action?

We have PC spin apologists calling it everything but what it was. Stress syndrome! What stress? The guy was an officer in a cush job that was essentially a sinecure when compared to most Army officer assignments. It was a plain murder by a homicidal jihadist who planned exactly what he was going to do. Just because he was not directly linked to one of the known Al Qaeda  terror groups makes him no less one of them. His cry of Allahu Akbar as he started his murderous rampage pretty much nails that one down.

The question begs…HOW THE HELL DID THIS GUY PASS BACKGROUND CHECKS? Unless it was because he WAS Muslim and the pressure on Army personnel to treat these people differently. This is the price of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS in the military, or anywhere in our society for that matter. A practical mind would call it just plain damn stupidity.

I’ve seen some media types wringing their hands and bemoaning that Major Hasan was supposedly ‘harassed’ by fellow soldiers…the kind of  statement that could only have been made by someone who had never been closer to the military than a television. Harassed!? Harassed by whom? The man was an officer. Certainly, no enlisted man would have said anything to him, either directly or in front of another officer. They would have instantly risked being brought up on charges. If someone had something to say about him, it would have been in private and around men of comparable rank. Even saying something in front of a senior non-com would have been to risk a dressing down. Another officer? Maybe one with a half a snoot full at the Officers Club? But such things are ungentlemanly and are generally frowned upon. Maybe another officer in private, calling him on his dangerously un-American views? Perhaps, but it would have to be one of equal or higher rank. Seems that there are a lot of people, in and out of the military, trying to make excuses for Major Hasan’s actions. There’s a glaring question mark behind that one also.

What about the rest of the Muslims in our military? We have had a Sergeant roll a grenade into a room, killing two officers and wounding fourteen others in Kuwait. He was a Muslim convert. There have been other domestic terror plots against our military, it is to be noted however, not connected to any service personnel.What about the soldiers who have to serve with the Muslim troops? How often do they ask themselves, “Is this dude going to go off one of these days?” AND what is the Army doing about that?

Has anyone gotten around to asking General Casey, while he’s busy protecting the Muslim troops in the Army from any ‘backlash’, what he is doing to protect the rest of the troops from them? Fair or not, they are part of a group of people known to espouse and nurture a virulently violent philosophy that worships death. It seems a little insane not to scrutinize them as well. Political correctness be damned.It appears that it is the only way to ensure we don’t have any more Malik Nidal Hasans.

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2009

by  Lance Thompson

“It is the nature of an intelligence service that it must receive encouragement and support from the government of the day; if the government lacks interest in or expert understanding for its intelligence service, not even the best service will succeed in overcoming external prejudices against it.” These are the words of Reinhard Gehlen, chief of the German federal intelligence service , the BND (Bundesnachrichtendienst), in 1971, in his excellent memoir, “The Service.” (English edition: World Publishing, New York, 1972). Gehlen brought invaluable intelligence assets to the United States regarding Russia after World War II, and founded the BND which continues its important work to this day.

Gehlen’s wisdom is alarmingly relevant today, as the American foreign intelligence service, the CIA, is battered by politically motivated attacks by Democrats and the Obama administration. The CIA, whose mission is to inform our leaders about the capabilities and intentions of our adversaries and allies, has always been a favorite target of liberals. But in recent weeks, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi accused the CIA of deceiving her when she was caught lying about briefings she received concerning interrogation techniques. When Pelosi’s false claims were exposed, she chose to denigrate the CIA rather than admit her deliberate deception.

Now, we learn that the House Intelligence Committee is investigating Democrat charges that former Vice President Cheney ordered the CIA not to inform Congress of a secret CIA plan to target al Qaeda terrorist leaders. This charge, of course, ignores the fact that the CIA reports directly to the President, is not under the command of the Vice President, and that both houses of Congress have independent intelligence committees who oversee the CIA.

Since the charge involves actions that took place years ago, under an administration that is no longer in power, it is evident that this is not a matter of urgency. Thus, it is obvious that this issue was chosen for other reasons–primarily to embarrass the previous administration. For such an exposure to be effective, the previous administration must be shown to have done something wrong.

The CIA is an intelligence agency, and many of its activities are effective only if kept secret. Therefore, the secrecy of the plans in question is not in itself questionable. Whether the vice president wanted greater secrecy or not is irrelevant–he did not have the authority or ability to demand what information the CIA revealed to congressional intelligence committees.

Therefore, the Democrats who want so badly to bring this investigation to light must believe that the plan itself–killing al Qaeda terrorist leaders–is wrong. They must believe that if Americans knew that the previous administration was studying ways of destroying our enemies who murdered thousands of Americans and were devising ways to murder thousands more, then it would bring shame and opprobrium upon that administration.

The Obama administration seeks closer ties to terrorist-sponsoring governments in Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela. They seek to extend the Constitutional rights of American citizens to terrorists who will sacrifice themselves in our destruction. The Obama state department won’t even call the war on terror the war on terror, or even call terrorists terrorists. So it is quite possible that Democrats believe that a plan to kill terrorists is not only contrary to current policy, but legally and morally wrong. So wrong, in fact, that if the American people discovered that the previous administration was planning such acts, that they would be filled with indignation and revulsion.

The Democrats, then, must believe that the oaths sworn by their president and congressmen to defend the United States are not only non-binding, but that any action or decision made to augment that defense is a transgression. Thus, the Bush administration, with its war on terror, its detention and prosecution of terrorists, and its covert efforts to expose and prevent further terrorists attacks, has been caught doing something that the American people won’t stand for. The Democrats believe that standing against the war on terror is the morally superior position, and using the CIA as a scapegoat is a politically smart strategy.

With this view, the majority party has succeeded in undercutting our efforts to counter the terrorist threat. In the few short months of the Obama administration, America has gone from the great arsenal of democracy to the great apologist for terrorism and the great enabler of tyranny. The Democrats believe this is what Americans want. Whether you agree or disagree, there is one place to let your voice be heard–the ballot box next year.

Al Qaeda has offered a truce to America. On June 22nd 2009, the third in command of Al Qaeda, Mustafa Abul-Yazeed, has given an interview to Aljazeera during which he explained the Al Qaeda Pakistan strategy and offered a conditional truce to America. Mustafa Abul-Yazeed is believed to have been the Chief Financial Officer for Al Qaeda and provided the funds for the September 11 2001 attacks on America.

Al Qaeda's truce offered to America by Mustafa Abul-Yazeed contains several conditions they dictate we should follow. This will give us a truce that meets their definition of 'peace'.

"We are part of a Muslim world that wants happiness for all humanity. If the Americans agree to our conditions : leave Muslim nations, stop supporting Israel, stop supporting oppressive regimes in the region, and stop killing Muslims and release prisoners. If they met these conditions we would offer a long truce, say ten years. Then we will ask them to become Muslims and if they refuse, we will Impose the Jizyeh or tax. And if they refuse we will fight them. This is our view of peace and we don't think they will agree, so we should prepare for the fight."

They offer this truce to America at this critical time because they have a strategy where after ten years, they will be able to make Americans an offer to convert that will be hard to refuse. They need those ten years of no pressure from America to do something in Pakistan, where the main short term objective of Al Qaeda resides. Al Qaeda has a long term strategy to obtain control of the Nuclear Weapons of Pakistan.

As Mustafa Abul-Yazeed declares in his interview.

"God willing, the nuclear weapons won't fall into the hands of the Americans and they will be seized by the fighters and used against the Americans."

I am sure that if they do not get Pakistan's Nuclear arsenal, they will be happy to buy them from Iran or North Korea.

So be ready America. When Dear Leader ZerO sits on the fence as Pakistan struggles against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. When he allows North Korea to ship Nuclear weapons and missiles to Fundamentalist Muslim strongholds like Somalia. When he quibbles and vacillates as the Iranian people seek a more moderate government and productive interaction with America.

In ten years, you will be given the choice.

Convert to the Muslim faith and Sharia Law.

Refuse to convert and pay Jizyeh, a 'protection tax' for the right to exist in Islam as a second class dhimmi.

Die by the sword, or nuclear fire in this case.

Those are the three allowable conditions infidels have in an Islamic Caliphate, the kind of world government Al Qaeda strives to build with other fundamentalist Muslims.

Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy55LOLkRVI

2,820 days safe in America, but no longer. President George W. Bush kept us safe for 2,688 days! Dear Leader ZerO kept us safe for 132 days!

On September 11, 2001, America was attacked by Muslim Terrorists on American soil.

On June 1, 2009, Americans where once again attacked on American soil by Muslim Terrorists.

Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, a Muslim convert attacked a military recruiting station in Little Rock, Arkansas. He killed Private William Long and wounded Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula. Even though the Terrorist had an initial preliminary FBI investigation started on him, no full blown investigation was authorized. An article from STRATFOR.com might shed some light on that.

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090603_lone_wolf_lessons

However, politics have proved obstructive to all facets of counterterrorism policy. And politics may have been at play in the Muhammad case as well as in other cases involving Black Muslim converts. Several weeks ago, STRATFOR heard from sources that the FBI and other law enforcement organizations had been ordered to “back off” of counterterrorism investigations into the activities of Black Muslim converts. At this point, it is unclear to us if that guidance was given by the White House or the Department of Justice, or if it was promulgated by the agencies themselves, anticipating the wishes of President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder.

The defenders of American security have been suffocated by the new administrations attitude and policies. The likelihood that a preliminary investigation will be authorized for a full investigation by a supervisor has been diminished. There is a fear that their career could be ruined or worse if they did as they want, and not as the administration might wish.

Your safety, your families safety, and the safety of every American in America has been diminished. Because everyone in our security organizations has been living in fear. Not of terrorists, but of our own government. Ever since Dear Leader ZerO opened the door for criminal prosecution for the people who just offer mere legal opinions on what is lawful regarding terrorists. Now all of the brave men and woman who guard our safety are shaking every time they need to make a decision to investigate, question, or arrest a suspected terrorist.

No longer will terrorists be stopped BEFORE they commit an act of war. Now, thanks to Dear Leader ZerO, many will only be arrested AFTER they have committed a crime.

Video at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUeBuG7prWE

President Obama rhetorically threw America under the bus yesterday.

George W. Bush gave the same substantive speech (minus apologies) a year ago.

My question is this: President Obama, as much as you quitely continue 43's counterterrorism policies In Iraq, Afghanistan, Club Gitmo, Terrorist Surveillance, and Rendition has the thought ever occured to you that despite your good (as much as it pains me to admit that) actions, your good actions are easily undermined by your words.

You don't understand Machiaveli 101; fear is more important than love.

I agree with you on a certain level; George W. Bush made us unloved around the world.  God Bless him, George W. Bush rejected the paradigm of appeasement to make sure our enemies feared us.

On the other hand, you really seem to think that by talking to them, our enemies will magically surrender.  Dude, it doesn't work that way.  Pussies are only an inch and a half away from you know what.

President Obama, America has not done anything wrong (except for raising taxes in 1990) over the past thirty years.  Given that you're speaking at Normandy later this week, before you throw America under the bus again, consider America's True Greatness.

I hope this helps.

Cahnman out.