baldilocks

Hamas Don't Like It

Predictably, Hamas fumes at the killing rocking of Osama bin Laden's casbah.

"We regard this as a continuation of the American policy based on oppression and the shedding of Muslim and Arab blood," Ismail Haniyeh, head of the Hamas administration in the Gaza Strip, told reporters.

Though he noted doctrinal differences between bin Laden's al Qaeda and Hamas, Haniyeh said: "We condemn the assassination and the killing of an Arab holy warrior. We ask God to offer him mercy with the true believers and the martyrs."

Wait a minute!  I thought that it was the goal of every Muslim to kill a bunch of infidels in life and be taken down by them in death.  Why doesn't Hamas realize that the United States military did Osama a favor, according to their own beliefs?

You'd think they'd be thanking us.

(Thanks to Jihad Watch)

Osama bin Laden Finds Out Who's in Charge

The villain of September 11, 2001 has gone to his reward—courtesy of the United States military, specifically US Navy SEALS—while he sat in a Pakistani mansion rather that in an Afghani cave.  Of course, there are reports of it everywhere.

President Obama’s announcement regarding the demise of bin Laden had its usual allotment of first-person singular references, but, for a change, it struck the right tone.  Former President Bush responded as well.

Early this morning, there was celebration outside of the White House gates, reminiscent of the celebration that occurred in the Palestinian Territories in response to 9/11.  One of my Facebook friends compared the celebrations, noting that we two peoples are not that different after all.  Well, he’s right.  All people fall short of the glory of God.

But there is this:  Osama bin Laden continuously attacked US entities outside of the physical country and twice inside of it.  His most successful attacks, in terms of body count, were the synchronized attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the attack for which United Airlines Flight 93 was meant.  He planned them and carried them out because of the god he believed in and served.

Our military had no such motive.  All we wanted to do was to neutralize a threat to our country, personalized in the man who declared war on it in the 1990s in the name of Islam.  And while I question the appropriateness (and the spontaneity) of the mass celebration of our sworn enemy’s demise, it cannot be said that Osama bin Laden was killed in the name of the God of Jews and Christians—not that this will matter to bin Laden’s like-minded co-religionists.

Speaking of them, one wonders how this victory—and it is a victory—will play out in the Muslim world.

Anyway, congratulations to Presidents Obama and Bush, and, most importantly, congratulations to the men of our United States Armed Forces.

UPDATE:  This was inevitable.

War Powers Resolution of 1973

Pretty straight-forward.

PURPOSE AND POLICY

SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations  where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the  circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2)  specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by  attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed  forces.

Pray tell, which of the emphasized circumstances exists?  Which of these gives President Obama license to order the intervention in Libya?

Help me out, here.

Consistency

...among the leftmost wing of the House Democrats.  Good to see it.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions [in Libya]” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.

Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) even asked why President Obama's actions aren't impeachable.  And from an unnamed Democrat lawmaker:

“They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress...They’re creating wreckage, and they can’t obviate that by saying there are no boots on the ground. … There aren’t boots on the ground; there are Tomahawks in the air.”

In my previous post, a guest tries to float (verb usage intentional) the idea that there was no congressional authorization for either of the Iraq Wars, among other actions in which the United States Military has been ordered to engage.  Of course the assertion about the two Iraq conflicts was easily disputed.  I haven't bothered to look up the others, most of which were conducted by Democrat presidential administrations.

I do hope the Left wing of the congressional Democrats stands firm.  We will see.

(Thanks to Hot Air)

There's Something Missing (UPDATED)

I can't figure out what it is.

BENGHAZI, Libya — President Barack Obama authorized limited military action against Libya Saturday, saying Moammar Gadhafi's continued assault on his own people left the U.S. and its international partners with no other choice. The Pentagon said it fired 110 cruise missiles at 20 targets along the Libyan coast.

Let me see...what's missing here?  Oh yes!  It's this: the US Congress hasn't authorized this military action aka war.

Surely we will soon be seeing the antiwar crowd out and about, blocking traffic and asserting that the president is waging an illegal war, a war-for-oil, etc.

I'm sure we will see this soon.

UPDATE:  President Obama is in Brazil.  He announced this strike against Gadhafi from the Brazilian capital. It appears that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is running things from Paris.

UPDATE: I knew we could count on the antiwar activists!

"Anti-war protesters arrested near White House"

The protesters, some shouting anti-war slogans and singing "We Shall Not Be Moved," were arrested after ignoring orders to move away from the gates of the White House. The demonstrators cheered loudly as Daniel Ellsberg, the former military analyst who in 1971 leaked the Pentagon's secret history of the Vietnam War that was later published in major newspapers, was arrested and led away by police.

And there were protests all around the country! New York, Chicago, San Francisco...

There's only one problem.  The protesters were there to mark the eighth anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq War, to call for complete withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan (told ya so) and to support Bradley Manning, the Army private who leaked classified documents to Wikileaks.

It has only been one day, however. I'm sure they'll get around to protesting the US intervention in Libya.  I have faith!

 

Information and Reformation

After I posted Discover the Networks’ “The Muslim Brotherhood’s Strategic Goal for North America” on my Facebook page, one of my friends--a friend in real life--pointed out that Christianity has history of conquest and forced conversion as well.

I don’t mean to pick on my friend, but I felt it necessary to reiterate my response here (edited):

[In order for an individual to examine the tenets of his/her faith], one must look at the foundational work establishing that faith.

Before the Bible was made available to the everyday Christian, the Church leadership--meaning the Catholic Church--dispensed doctrine interpreted in whatever manner it saw fit.  After Johannes Gutenberg, the Bible was made available to all who could read it.  It is no accident that Christianity was radically transformed and Reformed after that.

The same is happening to Islam with respect its adherents and its doctrines.

One of the Founders of these two religions commanded his followers to love God with all one's heart, soul, strength and mind and to love one's neighbor as self; the other commanded his followers to convert non-believers at the point of the sword or make them pay the unbelievers' tax.

As each set of followers have become more and more familiar with the foundational doctrines of the two sets of religious belief, they have begun to behave more and more in accordance to those doctrines: one set has become less totalitarian almost to the point of zero and the other more aggressive and violent.

The Bible and the Koran are objective documents with historical contexts readily available in this information age.  It is up to the individual to make himself/herself familiar enough with both--if desired--in order to come to a cogent conclusion.

My friend mentions the genocides committed in the name of Jesus. Of course, the crimes of the prior millennium’s Christian missionaries are well-known and acknowledged:

Christian missionaries of Europe fell into error and sin back when they were bent on converting the natives of all lands--not by the act and desire of leading others to Christ, but by making Christianity about something other than Him, His Sacrifice, Resurrection and the purpose thereof.  The missionaries bound up Christ in themselves and their own ethnicity.

[Edited also.  I can’t help myself.]

Those crimes do not take anything away from the quality of the Gospel; they only speak to the quality of the human beings preaching it.  Again, were such missionaries following the Bible or ignoring the inconvenient parts when they trampled non-Christian cultures?

This subject reminds me of my assertion that it’s necessary to be able to analyze information rather than simply to gather it.  The will and ability to do this has become essential—not just to "win" an argument, but for personal and national survival.

Keep watch.

Burning Korans, Christians, Respect (KS)

If you haven't been following the story, Terry Jones, the pastor of the Dove World Outreach Center in Florida, has been on the fence about his plans to burn Korans on September 11th.  It's been an on-again/off-again deal for the last several days.  Jones has said that he will call off the book burning if the Ground Zero Mosque is moved to a different location, but so far there has been no real assurance that this will happen.  Jones has not been terribly definitive here, so the Koran Kebab may or may not be on like Voltron.

I'll be honest.  At first I thought Jones was just some kook with an axe to grind.  He's probably not the most media-savvy dude.  But what he has done is open up a conversation that many members of our Big Media-Big Government complex would rather us not talk about--ever. 

From President Obama to Fareed Zakaria to Mayor Michael Bloomberg, most of the swells in America want to brush aside the question of Islam in our society.  For a host of reasons, they just need this topic to go away.  What Terry Jones has done is force our 'betters' to address something they really would rather avoid.

Here's the funny thing about America in the Age of Jihadi Terrorism:  Since 9/11/01, we've gone from righteous anger and forceful military retribution against violent Islamic extremists to bowing before Muslim kings and scraping in deference to elements of the faith in order to keep them from committing violent acts against us or our allies.

How did we get to this utterly incoherent mindset?  Ace points out something interesting here:

On that point -- this very good (as usual) essay by Christopher Hitchens. There he notes we have demanded that every other religion be "domesticated," which, dogged metaphor aside, means that we have demanded that other religions fall into compliance with civil law -- even where (as with Christian Science) the illegal aspect of the religion is a truly important part of the religion.

And yet we don't similarly insist on this with Islam. Islam is apparently a special religion in that it trumps civil law.

Again, another badge of Islam's supremacy over other religions -- and all governments -- which is precisely what they're killing for.

Bingo.

Why does Islam always get the kid glove treatment?  What makes them so special that they can never-EVER-be offended?  How is it that when the immature spoiled brat that is Islam gets a skinned knee, Western governments race to kiss the Muslim boo-boo in order to quell any possible terrorist temper-tantrums?

There are no other religions in American (or Western) society that receive this type of deference.  None.  Except the one that kills, rapes and tortures in order to meet its goals.  No other faith gets this laissez-faire treatment--except the one that is determined to use our Constitution as a wedge against us and put sharia law into it's place.  Truly amazing.

When Ace says that other religions in America have been domesticated, he's exactly right.  Christianity doesn't demand much from the US government.  It certainly doesn't scream for scriptural laws to be put into the federal code.  Oh sure, there might be some churches that are down with some theocratic leanings, but these are few and far between.  The same can be said for Jews, Hindus and Buddhists.  The theocrats in all these faiths are pretty much isolated.

Moreover, we should be quite happy to have the non-Islamic creeds domesticated.  The 'live and let live' attitude within American religious life has contributed to a basically quiet civil society.  This relatively peaceful domestic order is threatened now, and it isn't because the followers of Jesus are barking for the Old Testament to be the sole source of our laws.   

Islam stands alone in the religious fabric of the United States.  Islam refuses to bend, even one iota, before the agreed-upon civil system of American life.  It will not defer at all to the domestication that all other faiths in the US have gone through. 

And...really...why should Islam have to come to heel?  They've seen our weakness.  At any moment of religious discomfort, there are useful idiot infidels ready to defend Islam from the sort of slights that other faiths go through on a daily basis.  More importantly, the useful idiot infidels are always willing to go on offense for Islam, using slurs like 'unpatriotic', 'anti-American' or 'bigot' for those who are merely concerned that Islam is slowly but surely becoming the de facto state religion of America.  If a group is against the spread of sharia, the useful idiot infidels will call that person a racist, thereby providing a layer of insulation for Islam against outside criticism. 

Muslims intent on using the faith as a political tool can see the exact genus and species of spineless pathetic wimps we have for leaders.  That means that until they are confronted and made to join the rest of the religions in America, they will continue to act like the pushy, snarling, overindulged, petulant teenage jerks that they are.  It's that simple.  

So Terry Jones and the Dove Outreach Center might have picked at a scab other folks would rather stay closed.  Jones' flock might not be the nicest most caring people that ever walked the Earth, but they have forced the rest of us--even the hand-wringing worry-wart Left--to at least get a glimpse at reality.  Pray that the rest of America chooses to stay focused on the real world.

A Reminder of the Other Black Genocide (UPDATE)

In 2008, I posted the following video via YouTube. It had been part of a series which exposed the truth about the Islamic Civilization with special emphasis on the horrors of the Trans-Saharan Slave Trade.  My intent was to counter the exhortations of Barack Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and the like-minded who continue to excoriate America and the rest of Western Civilization for past sins against black African Slaves and Americans of African descent.

The owners of YouTube, however, have blocked the account of John Alembillah Azumah--the man interviewed in the series and the author of the book, The Legacy of Arab-Islam in Africa: A Quest for Inter-religious Dialogue. One can guess that some people were offended by the series--a state of affairs which often occurs when the truth is told.

This particular copy of the video, entitled "Muslim Black Slavery - Islam Slave History of Black Africa," is now posted at MetaCafe by a third party.

Here's Azumah's preamble:

The success of Mohammedan Islam in deceiving, misinforming, deforming and contorting both history and reality over a period of almost fourteen hundred years has been astounding--that is, until now.

The greatest tragedy about this particular subject is that most of the descendants of African slavery--the black people in the Americas, around the world, as well as among the African blacks--are totally ignorant of the actual facts.

Before we lose the concentration of our visitors, I would like to make the following statement and then prove it: that the worst, most inhumane and most diabolical of the black African Slave Trade was initiated, refined, perpetrated and implemented by the Mohammedan Arabs and, later, aided and abetted by the black converts to Mohammedan Islam.

I predict that, as usual, the two subcultures--those of denial of facts and of Political Correctness--will attack us without once disproving a single statement and/or conclusion that we make.

And here are some pertinent excerpts:

While the European involvement in the African Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade to the Americas lasted for just over three centuries, the Arab involvement in the African Slave Trade has lasted fourteen centuries and, in some parts of the Mohammedan world, is still continuing to this day.

(...)

It should also be noted that black slaves were castrated based on the assumption that the blacks had an ungovernable sexual appetite.

(...)

A comparison of the Islamic Slave Trade to the American Slave Trade reveals some extremely interesting contrasts.

While two out of every three slaves shipped across the Atlantic were men, the proportions were reversed in the Islamic Slave Trade: two women for every man were enslaved by the Muslims.

While the mortality rate of slaves being transported across the Atlantic was as high as ten percent, the percentage of slaves dying in transit in the Trans-Sahara[n] and East African Slave market was a staggering eighty to ninety percent.

(...)

While many children were born to slaves in the Americas--the millions of their descendants are citizens in Brazil and the United States of today--very few descendants of the slaves that ended up in the Middle East survived.

While most slaves who went to the Americas could marry and have families, most of the male slaves destined for the Middle East were castrated and most of the children born to the women were killed at birth.

Azumah pronounces the denial of the facts concerning the on-going Islamic Slave Trade as 'obscene.'

To those whose male ancestors survived American Slavery long enough to ensure that the former would be alive in the twenty-first century and, therefore, be able to refer to me as a House Negro for suspecting the motives of the putative builders of the "Ground Zero" Mosque, I feel pity.

That pity is mixed with a sense of astonishment, however, at this conclusion: that so many black people are so well indoctrinated with perpetual anger at the sins of America's past, that they would ignore the more egregious sins of Islam's present and desired future.  Hurling epithets and pretending that the opponents of the "Ground Zero" Mosque want to stifle freedom of religion is a lot easier than gathering the pertinent facts, connecting them, analyzing them and coming to a cogent conclusion, it seems.

On the other hand, perhaps such people have indeed concluded that Islam would like to expand its decimation of those of African descent--with black men being the special and specified targets for annihilation.  Perhaps the slinging of epithets, etc. is merely a smokescreen--an insurance for the future.  Such people will be able to say to their future masters, "see? I stood up for the Ummah against that infidel, Ochieng."

Maybe such people are merely trying to protect their own testicles--such as they are.

Enslave a man's mind and the rest of him--including his testicles-- will follow; no more need for physical chains.

UPDATE: John Alembillah Azumah's bonafides: he is the Director of the Centre for Islamic Studies at the London School of Theology.  I would imagine that he has competent security and, no doubt, he is in need of our prayers.

Comments on a Love Note (UPDATE: Field Negro Responds and So Do I)

Yesterday, a blogger styling himself as the Field Negro dubbed me the "House Negro of the Day":

(JULIETTE OCHIENG) I SWEAR SOME OF YOU NEGROES MUST GET PAID BY THE WORD TO SAY DUMB STUFF. THIS CONSERVATIVE BLOGGER CALLS THE MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO A "SECURITY RISK". SAYING DUMB S#*T JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN IS ALWAYS HNB

[Link added by me; don't worry--it leads to my post, "Beacon."]

Field Negro--may I call you Negro?--would it actually hurt you to expound on why you think my opinion is "dumb?"

Show your lack of "dumbness" by explaining to your readers how building such a mosque--set to be funded and "pastored" by a person who has continually called for the the implementation of Sharia law in the United States--is not a security risk. Take it step by step.

I can further defend my position.  Are you capable of defending yours?  I'd sure like to read it.  You never know--if you're premises are sound and your conclusion follows logically from them, I would be compelled to change my opinion.  In case you have never heard of this concept, it's called 'intellectual honesty.'  Try it, you'll like it--eventually.

Otherwise, I'll merely write you off as one of the conditioned.

UPDATE:

Field Negro is “gracious” enough to respond:

Ms. House Negro, you may call me whatever you like, just as long as you don't call me collect. Now let me "expound" -just a little-on why I think your opinion is dumb:

You argue that putting this Mosque two blocks from Ground Zero would put Americans at risk because the leader of the Mosque believes in a strict form of Islamic law. (Sharia) That, in of itself, is ludicrous. Iam not connecting the dots between an interpretation of an ancient religious philosophy and bombs dropping on suburbia.

And, just for argument sake, let's assume that Faisal Abdul Rauf does believe in the most negative and regressive form of Sharia law as you allege; what difference would it make if he built his Mosque a block from Ground Zero or in Jersey City?

Just because you are unable to connect the dots, it does not follow that my opinion is ludicrous.  You may have a shortcoming or two. However, I will assist you.

Islam’s raison d’être is to convert the world to Islam, by force if necessary.  One of the tools of force is fear.  And inducing fear is the goal of terrorism.

Of course, we know that many Muslims consider the Islamist attacks of September 11, 2001 to be one of Islam’s greatest victories against the United States/Great Satan.  Building a mosque adjacent to what used to be the Twin Towers would be like planting a flag of victory for Allah.  This is not an unprecedented concept; armies of Islam and many other armies use this sort of symbolism to say to observers the equivalent of “we won; you lost.”  In the eyes of others wishing to spread Islam by the “sword,” such a statement would be a…Beacon, one drawing those of like desire; this beacon would encourage other Soldiers for Allah to perpetrate further attacks in America in order to win more victories for Allah, in order to win his blessings and in order to gain glory for themselves.

Does that help?

But my rebuttal above assumes that you were right about Rauf and his position when it comes Sharia Law. You were not. Only a person whose mind has been poisoned by right wing ideology -A poison that was inflicted by the likes of Newt Gingrich- could view a man who has published writings such as this in such spurious and mendacious manner. Parroting right wing talking points to score "brownie points" with your ideological soul mates does not make you a critical thinker, or, for that matter, someone capable of "intellectual honesty". It makes you a fraud, and a fraud of the worse kind: one whose sole purpose in life is to remain in the comfort of a poorly constructed house.

So many assumptions in one short paragraph!  I haven’t listened to or read anything by Newt Gingrich since he appeared in that Global Warming TV ad with Nancy Pelosi.  However, here is some of what I have read about Ra’uf:

Feisal Abdul Rauf is the imam behind the “Cordoba Initiative” that is spearheading plans to build a $100 million Islamic center at Ground Zero, the site where nearly 3,000 Americans were killed by jihadists on 9/11. He is also the author of a book called What’s Right with Islam Is What’s Right with America. But the book hasn’t always been called that. It was called quite something else for non-English-speaking audiences. In Malaysia, it was published as A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post-9/11.

Now it emerges that a “special, non-commercial edition” of this book was later produced, with Feisal’s cooperation, by two American tentacles of the Muslim Brotherhood: the Islamic Society of North America and the International Institute of Islamic Thought.

(…)

Both ISNA and IIIT have been up to their necks in the promotion of Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood’s ruthless Palestinian branch, which is pledged by charter to the destruction of Israel. In fact, both ISNA and IIIT were cited by the Justice Department as unindicted co-conspirators in a crucial terrorism-financing case involving the channeling of tens of millions of dollars to Hamas through an outfit called the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. For the last 15 years, Hamas has been a designated terrorist organization under U.S. law.

(…)

The purpose of dawa, like the purpose of jihad, is to implement, spread, and defend sharia.

(…)

In considering Imam Rauf and his Ground Zero project, [Yusuf] Qaradawi [spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood] and the Muslim Brotherhood are extremely important. Like most Muslims, Rauf regards Qaradawi as a guide, and referred to him in 2001 as “the most well-known legal authority in the whole Muslim world today.”

(…)

Qaradawi regards the United States as the enemy of Islam. He has urged that Muslims “fight the American military if we can, and if we cannot, we should fight the U.S. economically and politically.”

And why do you assume that my goal in saying the things I say is the accrual of “brownie points.”  Brownie points from whom, consisting of what?  I know the history of Islamic conquest in Africa, how it weakened that continent, making it ripe for further conquest by Europeans and how its adherents continue to rape, murder and pillage on my father’s fragmented continent.  And I know what non-black Muslims think about black people—even those in the latter number who are foolish enough to convert. Which one of us is the "House Negro" and the "fraud" again?

A rapidly weakening USA is quickly becoming a target for those who would like to remake it in their own image, whatever that image may be.  Right now, this country is just a financial target, but that could change. The giant is ailing and the wolves—like Russia, China, and Islam—are waiting for it to fall.  So you might say that the “brownie point” I wish to accrue is survival.

I hope you didn't trip over my steps.

Darling, I’m starting to get the feeling that you don’t like me. My heart is broken to be disliked by such a charming gentleman!  :-}

However, I hope that you awaken and decide that you want to survive also.  Really.  And I hope you save a little bit of that snarl for your real enemy.

Beacon (Update: What Bill Whittle Said)

Pretty much all who follow the news regularly—and many who don’t—know about the controversy surrounding the proposed construction of a Mosque near the site of what used to be the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City.

The backers of this project and many others –including the mayor of New York--have cast the intent as a “freedom of religion” issue.

The opponents of the project—which are many—cast it mostly in emotional terms; I’m with them, but those terms, by their very nature, allow themselves to be argued down.

However, there is one reason to be against it—one which sets itself above all the others, one which is existential and practical rather than emotional. 

A “Victory Mosque” set in the shadow of Ground Zero will be just that: a symbol of victory for the Islamists at the site of one of the greatest body counts in the name of Allah.  And the existence of such symbols will invite more attempts at military conquest from the Soldiers of Allah.

Go on about the First Amendment and about misinterpretations of the phrase ‘hallowed ground.’  Keep pretending that blocking the construction of this particular mosque is somehow preventing New York Muslims from freely exercising their religion—as if permission to build a church or a synagogue anywhere in NYC would automatically be granted.  But know this: our enemies will take our notions of “fairness” and explode it in our faces; not just in Afghanistan or Iraq, but right here on the Hallowed Ground which stretches from sea to shining sea.

By the way, if we infidels aren’t quickly jumping to convert to Islam, to die or to become dhimmis, are we violating the First Amendment?  Just wondering.  Because that would be the full flowering of the free exercise of Islam.

Lots of First Amendment violations in that, don’t you think?

UPDATE: Confirmation.

The Muslim Canadian Congress (MCC) is urging the Cordoba House Initiative to abandon its proposed Ground-Zero Mosque in New York in the face of outrage expressed by large segments of the American population calling the proposal an act of 'fitna' or mischief.

In a letter to Imam Faisal Rauf that will be delivered on Tuesday, August 10 by MCC’s board member Raheel Raza, the MCC says, “Many Muslims suspect that the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation, to thumb our noses at the 'infidel.' We believe the proposal has been made in bad faith and, in Islamic parlance, is creating  'fitna,' meaning 'mischief-making,' an act clearly forbidden in the Qur’an.”

(Thanks to The Anchoress)

UPDATE:

(Thanks to Instapundit)

Tactical Analysis

In the wake of the al Qaeda terror attack in Uganda, the Obama Administration states, for the record that:

...U.S. intelligence has indicated that al Qaeda leadership specifically targets and recruits black Africans to become suicide bombers because they believe that poor economic and social conditions make them more susceptible to recruitment than Arabs," the [Obama Administration ] official said. "Al Qaeda recruits have said that al Qaeda is racist against black members from West Africa because they are only used in lower level operations."

By now, however, anyone who has been close observing what this administration says and does knows that nothing can be taken at face value--especially a statement which should produce a "duh" in the minds of anyone who is familiar with Islam's history in Africa.

So, what to make of such an unneeded statement? Here's what.

Most recently, the online commentariat on the Right has been abuzz about the NAACP and its formal statement condemning the Tea Party movement for its alleged racism against blacks (more about that in a later post). 

So, when President Obama calls al Qaeda terrorists racist (true, but who cares? dead is dead) and his minions in the NAACP call the Tea Party movement racist (untrue), they are attempting to plant seeds in the minds of the uninformed and still evaluating.

They are attempting to paint the Tea Party movement as a terrorist movement in the arena of public opinion. Sissy Willis comes to the same conclusion before I do. 

And if the attempt is strategically successful, the president will attempt to make the designation public policy.

[Edited]

Thoughts on the Anniversary of D-Day

¹Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:

 ²And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

 ³And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

Genesis 12:1-3 (KJV)

Isn’t it interesting that Europe finds itself in financial straits and that some on the continent are lamenting the gradual incursion of Islam in very many of its countries?

From reading Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope (I read it years before Glenn Beck recommended it), I discovered what a death toll World War One had taken on the population of its European participants.  Present-day protesters against the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would have committed serial seppuku over the type of casualties taken in any single battle of the Great War—the great numbers of dead being caused by contemporaneous weapons combined with American Civil War-era tactics.  Then there were the civilian casualties.  Overwhelming to ponder at the time, no doubt, but small potatoes compared to what was to come a few years after the “War to End All Wars.”

Europeans murdered each other thoroughly in that war, in World War Two, in between the wars and afterward. They did so via gas chambers, ovens, starvation and government prison camps and most of them viciously turned on the Jews using the means stated.  Because of that--and abortion--there have not been enough indigenous Europeans left to reproduce and, thereby, fund the welfare states in which they so desperately believe and which are become their undoing.  So they had to invite in immigrants from Africa and Asia--mostly Muslim.

And therein lies the interesting part.  Murdered Jews—the monetary experts and culture of Europe--who would have reproduced to populate a far stronger and more admirable Europe, IMO--have been replaced by those who hate both Jews and non-Muslim white Europeans and who reproduce at a far greater rate than do their hosts.  And the kicker is that the white post-Christian Europeans invited in their would-be conquerors.

The children and grandchildren of those who coveted Jewish possessions will soon be in a struggle with those who simultaneously claim that there was no Holocaust and who long to perpetrate the next one.  No, hatred doesn't have to make sense.

That struggle will be over possession of a land which is covered with the ashes of the Jews.

You don't think God doesn't keep his promises?  Think again.

Mystery Theater

Faisal Shahzad is the Pakistani-born U.S. citizen who confessed to trying to blow up NYC's Times Square last week.  And CBS thinks that his motives are mysterious.  

As I said to Dr. Melissa, evil is a mystery to the stupid.  However, a deeper idiocy is indicated in that headline.

CBS types can't believe that Americans are still hated after we've gotten rid of the warmonger, George W. Bush and elected Barack Obama, peacemaker and might-be-Muslim (yes, I've changed my mind).

These sorts don't understand evil. Heck, many of them don't even think evil exists, or worse: that the value judgment of evil depends on the identity of the judge, which, of course, is the essence of identity politics.

BTW, does it seem to you that, since 9/11, jihadis in America can't handle anything more technically complicated that an M-16?  Keep praying.

Never Learning

In relation to the case of Umar Abdulmutallab—better known as the Panty Bomber, the Fruit of Kaboom Bomber, the Junk Bomber and the Knicker Bomber (please say that last using a British accent)--Mike Allen of Politico mentions the Shoe Bomber again.

Republicans may have a hard time keeping up their talking point about how reading Miranda rights to the Christmas Day bomber represented a dangerous new direction under President Barack Obama.

It turns out that that back in December 2001, Richard Reid — the “shoe bomber” — was read or reminded of his Miranda rights four times in two days, beginning five minutes after being taken into custody.

Furthermore, the Bush administration specifically rejected the idea of a military tribunal [the legal framework of which had not yet been set up by the time Reid went on trial in 2002]— another step that Republicans have argued should have been taken in the case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who tried to bring down Northwest Flight 253 over Detroit on Christmas Day and was read his rights after 50 minutes of FBI questioning. [They argued this because the tribunals had long been in place by 2009 when Idiot tried to blow his "man"hood off.]

So let’s be clear (if you’ll pardon the expression)…

• When the Right does everything the same manner all the time, it is deemed rigid, dogmatic or intolerant by the Left.
• When the Right changes the way it does things for a given situation after prior tactics have proved unworkable, the Left begins to use words like ‘hypocrisy’ or phrases like ‘talking point.’

I was originally going to observe that it’s easy to tell which writers have actually done some real work in their lives--work that requires a thing called Systematic Problem-solving, aka trial-and-error.  However, Mike Allen’s piece pointing to the Bush Administration's change of legal status for foreign terrorists isn’t indicative of his own work experience. 

Allen judges that most of those who would agree with him are the ones who have no real work/problem-solving experience or that such people would choose to ignore what they have learned from that kind of experience in order to be able to throw the Republicans’ “talking points” back into their faces.  That's Leftist logic for you.

And after all these years, it’s comforting to know that many of my assessments about the Left are correct: they care more about dispatching the Right’s “talking points” than they do about safeguarding this country from Jihadists.

Well, perhaps “comforting” isn’t the right word…but you get the idea.

(Thanks to Hot Air)

Standing

Today, the Panty Bomber--Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab--will stand before a US District court in Detroit and be arraigned like a common criminal instead of standing before a military tribunal and being adjudicated like the enemy combatant that he is.  Given the planned criminal trial for 9/11 planner Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, this isn't a surprise, however.

Leaving that aside, I must commend a group of protesters who plan on protesting in front of that court building: a group of Muslims who are indeed asserting that Abdulmutallab did not act in their name—something I suggested.

"We're telling the terrorists we're Americans. If you want to kill Americans come kill us," [Majed Moughni] said.

"We're going to send you back to the caves of Afghanistan because you don't belong in a civilized society.

May God protect those people.

Terror Follies

What a day.

While you were sleeping, President Obama decided to take over turned his attention to the disposition of classified documents.

More than 400 million pages of Cold War-era documents could be declassified as the federal government responds to President Barack Obama's order to rethink the way it protects the nation's secrets.

(…)

Obama also reversed a decision by President George W. Bush that had allowed the intelligence community to block the release of a specific document, even if an interagency panel decided the information wouldn't harm national security.

And Former Vice President Cheney thinks that the president is trying to pretend that the United States is not at war.  Gee,  I can’t imagine how the former vice president would come to that conclusion!

Larry Johnson says that the Obama Administration is trying to defame and defang the CIA.  Again.

It is not the job or mission of a CIA field office to comb through intelligence reports and do analysis or piece together puzzles. They are first and foremost information gatherers. The Bush Administration and the Congress removed the CIA from the job of “piecing” together disparate pieces of information. That job was passed to NCTC [the National Counter Terrorism Center], which is under the control of the Director of National Intelligence [DNI], Admiral Dennis Blair.

Even more basic, the Panty Bomber bought a one-way ticket with cash.  It’s not the CIA’s responsibility to monitor that either.  And doesn't the DNI have a direct line to the president?

Boarding at a Mogadishu airport, a Somalian tried to blow up himself and an aircraft airliner last month.  Hey black African men!  Haven’t you figured out yet that Arab Muslims are afraid of you and want you dead?  I guess that the castration of millions of black male slaves in the last 500 years were not enough of a clue. Stop helping them.

Pam Meister:

“[President Obama’s]  agenda does not seem to include a serious take on national security; it’s all about remaking the country in his Marxist image. He’s more concerned about taking over the health care system and bringing the capitalist system to its knees. The jihadists know it. After all, this is a guy who has no problem sending hardened jihadists to a prison in Illinois and sending other “detainees” back to the hotbed of jihad in Yemen.”

The intentional destruction of the capitalist system by the Obama Administration and its ho-hum attitude about the renewed Jihad are two sides of the same coin.

And, no, I'm still not afraid.

UPDATE: Hearing a report that the NCTC never got the information.  It's looking like a bureaucracy layer overload.

Biting the Hand That Protects You

According to the latest reports, the CIA and the State Department have known who Panty Bomber Umar Abdulmutallab was since May of this year--having been in tipped by the UK--and what he was about since August. And the CBS report is just the epitome of even-handedness, isn't it?

U.S. Intel Lapses Helped Abdulmutallab

So now that the blaming of the Sheepdogs has begun, I might as well wade in.

Simple question: how likely is it that the Obama Administration would be inclined to listen and act on anything the CIA or any of the other intelligence agencies found noteworthy regarding threats from potential terrorists? You and I both know that the CIA has been under siege by this very administration for the agency's prior handling of terror suspects since right around the time that all concerned became aware of Abdulmutallab.

I submit (again) that this administration wants America to be attacked so that a pretext will exist and a rationalization can be used to implement more...shall we say...interesting policies. 

Hang on tight!

(Thanks again to Hot Air)

[Re-edited]

Choose Whom to Serve (UPDATED)

Ralph Peters is past livid.  I know for a fact that he’s not alone.

On Christmas Day, an Islamist fanatic tried to blow up an airplane whose passengers were mostly Christians. And we helped.

Our government gets no thanks for preventing a tragedy. Only the bomber's ineptitude preserved the lives of nearly 300 innocents.

(…)

Contrast our political correctness with [failed Panty Bomber Umar] Abdulmutallab's choice of Christmas for his intended massacre. Our troops stand down on Muslim holidays. A captive terrorist merely has to claim that a soldier dog-eared a Koran, and it's courts-martial all around.

We proclaim that the terrorists "don't represent Islam." OK, whom do they represent? The Franciscans? We don't get to decide what's Islam and what isn't. Muslims do. And far too many of them approve of violent jihad.

It gets worse. Instead of focusing on the religious zeal and inspiration of our enemies and how such motivations change the game, our "terrorism experts" agonize over whether such beasts as Abdulmutallab or Maj. Hasan, the Fort Hood assassin for Allah, are really members of al Qaeda or not.

As a Sunday Post editorial pointed out, al Qaeda's far more than a formal organization; it's an idea, a cause. If a terrorist says he's al Qaeda, he is, even if he doesn't have a union card from Jihadi Local 632.

We're dealing with a global Muslim movement, not a Masons' lodge.

I had to restrain myself from quoting Peters’ entire polemic.

If the jihadis like Abdulmutallab and Hasan and Hakim Mujahid Muhammad do not represent the essence of Islam, if the behavior of these charmers is not exemplary of how a devout Muslim should act, then where are the American Muslims who would repudiate the actions of their co-religionists?  Are they too afraid of how the murderers among them will react?  Or are they merely assenting silently and biding their time?

One thing is for sure: our present government leadership most certainly is too afraid to act/react forcefully and effectively to discourage jihadist attacks. Some say that is due to George W. Bush’s assertion that Islam is a “Religion of Peace.” Poppycock.  The 43^rd President could have asserted that Islam was the religion of ham sandwiches and it would not have mattered.  What mattered is what he did in the aftermath of the Islamic jihadi attacks of September 11, 2001: he (re)acted aggressively and forcefully to a homeland attack from an enemy.  Say what you want about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Big Boys in the Islamic terror circles—like Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri--were not expecting such a reaction.   

Bullies expect cowering from their targets and the terror kings had American citizens and their leaders down for wimps.  And actually, they were partially correct about both groups, though the ratio of balls to no-balls differs between the two groups.  They just “happened” to perpetrate 9/11 at a time when the leadership was strong and not willing back away from a gauntlet thrown down. 

We went to war--perhaps not against Islam, but against Islamists, who, naturally, subscribe to the tenets of Islam.  And in the minds of very many Muslims, no fine lines of distinction existed as to with whom/what American was at war.  To them we were and are at war with their religion.  Even so, you may recall that several leaders of Islamic countries responded to that show of strength by communicating a hearty “no thanks” to being on the receiving end of American wrath. 

That response was instructive: who cares if one's adversaries get angry?  As long as they realize that the drawbacks of attacking the Great Satan outweigh the benefits. 

But now, with the jihadi drawback-benefit analysis having being revised since January 20, 2009 and with the level of cowardice existing in the American leadership moving toward the higher end and with the very top of that leadership concentrating on apologizing for that strength, it appears that the portion of American citizenry in possession of courage and, most especially, in possession of faith, must fill up the breach of action and reaction.  Those who serve in our military are already doing their part.  So what are the rest of us going to do? 

Specifically, what are you Americans who happen to be Muslim going to do?  My religion teaches us not to be afraid of those who can kill the body.  As a matter of fact, the Bible says that the spirit of fear is not from God at all.  I think all most of us would like to see is a Not-in-Our-Name sort of movement from you, Americans who happen to be Muslim.  Are you too afraid of your jihadi brethren? What does your religion say about fear?

We’re waiting.

Sort of Off-Topic: After Fort Hood, my American dad said that if he were in any position of responsibility at the federal level, he’d profile anyone with a "funny" name. Keep in mind this is coming from a guy whose step-daughter’s surname is Kenyan Luo in origin and whose biological daughters have Arabic given names. He said that if he didn’t know us, he’d profile the hell out of us. LOL

We laugh but it’s logical…and serious. 

And I'll say this because I can: too bad the Funny Name Profiling didn't start two years ago.

UPDATE:  And right on cue, Anwar al Awlaki, the American-born Muslim cleric based in Yemen, who is thought to have mentored the incipient jihadism of Major Nidal Malik Hasan, claims to have blessed the Panty Bomber plot.  Personally, I think that Awlaki is merely floor-showing for his boys—these terrorists are such peacocks—but one would think that he would rather keep his mouth shut since this particular plot fizzled.

Then again, Awlawi is carving out a spot in the minds of those prone to fear, so his tactic is understandable.

(Thanks to Allahpundit)

More About the Latest Stooge of the Islamists

So what will al Qaeda's newest explosive fetish mean to the air-traveling public?

The plot to blow up an American passenger jet over Detroit was organized and launched by al Qaeda leaders in Yemen who apparently sewed bomb materials into the suspect's underwear before sending him on his mission, federal authorities tell ABC News. Investigators say the suspect, Abdul Farouk Umar Abdulmutallab, a 23-year-old Nigerian student whose birthday was last Tuesday, has provided detailed information about his recruitment and training for what was supposed to be a Christmas Day suicide attack.

Investigators say the suspect had more than 80 grams of PETN, a compound related to nitro-glycerin used by the military. (…)

Yesterday's bomb failed because the detonator may have been too small or was not in "proper contact" with the explosive material, investigators told ABC News.

(...)

Abdulmutallab suffered second-degree burns in his genital area, investigators told ABC News.

Oh, so many punch lines available, only…this is serious business.

Authorities say the suspected bomber was traveling on a visa issued by the State Department on June 16, 2008 and valid until June 12, 2010. Officials tell ABC News he was on a U.S. "terror watch list" but not on the "no fly" list, which would have prevented him from boarding the flight.

Okay I'm trying to wrap my mind around the "logic" of being on the "Terror Watch List" while not being on the No Fly" list.  And get this: the guy’s father warned US authorities about him six months ago!

One report said the father could not understand why his son was allowed to board a flight to the U.S. given his warning.

::::facepalm:::

It appears that the only thing which saved this plane was God’s Providence in the form of some intrepid passengers and, as mentioned before, the idiocy of the particular jihadi. And, again, Yemen was in the picture. Is that the new hot-bed of terrorists?

Notably, this was the 28th terror plot known to be foiled since the attacks of September 11, 2001.

(Thanks to Ed Morrissey, who has a really....frightening video up.)

Another Attempted Take-Down

Flight 63 (shoe-bomber) all over again:

A Nigerian man, claiming to be linked to al-Qaeda, allegedly tried to set off an incendiary device aboard a transatlantic airplane Friday as it descended toward Detroit's airport in what the White House called an attempted act of terrorism.

The man was quickly subdued after another passenger leapt on top of him, others on the plane said, and Northwest Airlines Flight 253 from Amsterdam landed safely around 1 p.m. Friday. The suspect was being treated at a hospital for burns he suffered while igniting the device, the Transportation Security Administration said.

(...)

The suspect is Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab, a federal official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing. ABC News and NBC News reported that Abdulmutallab, 23, attends University College London, where he studies engineering.

Although not on the TSA's "no-fly" list, Abdulmutallab's name appears to be included in the government's records of terrorism suspects, according to a preliminary review, authorities said.

Abdulmutallab has told federal investigators that he had ties to al-Qaeda and traveled to Yemen to collect the incendiary device and instructions on how to use it, according to a federal counterterrorism official briefed on the case. Authorities have yet to verify the claim, and they expect to conduct several more interviews before they determine whether he is credible, the official said.

You know? These foiled, inept jihadis seem to be almost commonplace.  It's as if one has to be a raging idiot to want to blow self up while taking a bunch of other people along to the next world. (Nah, that couldn't be!)

Seriously, it only takes one non-inept idiot to carry through what this person wanted (see Fort Hood).  And in my increasingly conspiracy-laced imagination, I wonder whether our terrorist foes are sending out the pinheads in their number to make mischief and possibly get lucky while the bigger fish wait and plot and plan bigger things.  That's the way big-time terrorists roll...and doctrinaire Leftists, now that I think about it.

(Some would say that putting such thoughts out there amounts to fear-mongering.  Well no one can monger fear in other people, not really.  Being afraid is an individual choice.)

Now, excuse me while I get some caffeine in my consciousness.

More About Flight 297

So happy to have put a disclaimer up before retelling this story--at least the first part of it! From the Spooky One:

The scenario sounds frightening; it doesn't take a lot of imagination to conjure up images of a hi-jacking, were it not for the quick actions of Mr. Petruna and that other passenger. You'd think that AirTran would offer him some sort of reward.

But there's only one problem with the story of Todd Petruna and the events that transpired on Flight 297 back on 18 November. After a little checking, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution discovered that Petruna wasn't on the flight on the date in question. While he was scheduled to be on that aircraft, Petruna didn't make the first leg of his flight, out of the Akron-Canton Airport in Ohio. As a result, he missed his scheduled connection on Flight 297.

Here's the retraction.

Be that as it may, there's still this:

While the AJC story paints a much different picture of Flight 297, it doesn't answer all of the questions raised by the incident. For example, the paper (and other media outlets) confirm that a replacement crew was brought onboard to fly the plane to Houston, after the first crew declined the assignment.

That decision was made by the Captain originally assigned to the flight. It's rather unusual for a pilot-in-command to decline an assignment, and take his crew off the aircraft. Chaplain Keith Robinson of Houston, who was allowed to board the aircraft after it returned to the gate area. Based on his conversations with passengers and crews, Robinson believes that some sort of "intentional intimidation" occurred during the first departure attempt. And apparently, that intimidation attempt was so disconcerting that the original crew refused to complete their flight to Houston.

Something happened on that plane and it's too bad that one person's fantasy life may interfere with the whole truth getting out.  But there will be more like these.  Count on it.

(Thanks the Ace of Spades HQ)

Don't Go Back to Sleep, Part 2

The Mumbai terror attacks from a year ago may have been planned by Americans—or rather, persons with American passports. The Department of Justice has charged a Chicago man (re-) named David Headley with conspiring to commit those attacks.

Originally David Headley was only charged with plotting to blow up the newspaper in Denmark that published the Mohammad cartoons. That plot seemed rather amateurish and was thought of as aspirational. But it soon became obvious to any one paying attention that Headley also had a hand in India's worst act of terror this decade.

The importance of this being that radical Islamists are now using their American passports to bypass suspicion that would normally be put on them if traveling under, say, a Pakistani passport. They are using their American citizenship to plot and execute terrorist plots abroad.

And this is not too fine a point to make either for Headley was originally born Daood Gilani and only changed his name to make it sound less Muslim and more flyover country American. He also admits he did this to make international traveling easier.

(...)

Headley,49, was charged in a 12-count criminal information with six counts of conspiracy to bomb public places in India, to murder and maim persons in India and Denmark, to provide material support to foreign terrorist plots, and to provide material support to [Lashkar e Tayyiba—an Islamist organization in Pakistan], and six counts of aiding and abetting the murder of U.S. citizens in India.

So if Chicagoans are plotting and carrying out terror in an Indian city, what do you think they have planned for American ones?

Remember what happened in Mumbai:

Starting Nov. 26, 2008, and continuing through Nov. 28, 2008, 10 attackers trained by Lashkar carried out multiple assaults with firearms, grenades and improvised explosive devices against multiple targets in Mumbai, including the Taj Mahal and Oberoi hotels, the Leopold Café, the Nariman House and the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus train station, each of which Headley allegedly had scouted in advance, killing approximately 170 victims. The six Americans killed during the three-day siege are identified in the charges as Ben Zion Chroman, Gavriel Holtzberg, Sandeep Jeswani, Alan Scherr, his daughter Naomi Scherr, and Aryeh Leibish Teitelbaum.

All of these Americans were of the Jewish faith and purposely targeted because of that.

We’ll see what this Department of Justice does with this case.

Keep watching.

(Thanks to Hot Air)

Don't Go Back to Sleep

 USS West Virginia, December 7 1941

I'm Not Infuriated By This

There's another emotion I'm feeling about this, but I don't quite have name for it yet.

It's been brought to my attention by several reliable sources that the Defense Department has brought Louay Safi to Fort Hood as an instructor, and that he has been lecturing on Islam to our troops in Fort Hood who are about to deploy to Afghanistan. Safi is a top official of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and served as research director at the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT).

Worse, last evening, Safi was apparently permitted to present a check (evidently on behalf of ISNA) to the families of the victims of last month's Fort Hood massacre. A military source told the blogger Barbarossa at the Jawa Report: "This is nothing short of blood money. This is criminal and the Ft. Hood base commander should be fired right now."

ISNA was identified by the Justice Department at the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing conspiracy trial as an unindicted co-conspirator. The defendants at that trial were convicted of funding Hamas to the tune of millions of dollars. This should have come as no surprise. ISNA is the Muslim Brotherhood's umbrella entity for Islamist organizations in the United States.

A Muslim--a Jihadist--murders those which he has sworn oaths to lead, to stand beside and to render no harm to. So what do his commanders do?  They bring in a representative from America's Muslim Brotherhood entity to chat up the troops and bribe the bereaved.

No, I can't name this feeling.  But I know in my gut that the base commander didn't order this visit.   The permission for this came from the top.

.

On Our Own?

UPDATE:  Dr. Melissa Clouthier, who had the story yesterday, interviews Chaplain Dr. Keith A. Robinson.

Disclaimer: I don't know whether any of this is true but it's better to put it out there than not. [I moved the page break.]

A terror dry-run seen from one end:

I was in 1st class coming home. 11 Muslim men got on the plane in full attire. 2 sat in 1st class and the rest peppered themselves throughout the plane all the way to the back. As the plane taxied to the runway the stewardesses gave the safety spiel we are all so familiar with. At that time, one of the men got on his cell and called one of his companions in the back and proceeded to talk on the phone in Arabic very loudly and very aggressively. This took the 1st stewardess out of the picture for she repeatedly told the man that cell phones were not permitted at the time. He ignored her as if she was not there.

The 2nd man who answered the phone did the same and this took out the 2nd stewardess. In the back of the plane at this time, 2 younger Muslims, one in the back, isle, and one in front of him, window, began to show footage of a porno they had taped the night before, and were very loud about it. Now….they are only permitted to do this prior to Jihad. If a Muslim man goes into a strip club, he has to view the woman via mirror with his back to her. (don’t ask me….I don’t make the rules, but I’ve studied). The 3rd stewardess informed them that they were not to have electronic devices on at this time. To which one of the men said “shut up infidel dog!” She went to take the camcorder and he began to scream in her face in Arabic. At that exact moment, all 11 of them got up and started to walk the cabin. This is where I had had enough! I got up and started to the back where I heard a voice behind me from another Texan twice my size say “I got your back.” I grabbed the man who had been on the phone by the arm and said “you WILL go sit down or you Will be thrown from this plane!” As I “led” him around me to take his seat, the fellow Texan grabbed him by the back of his neck and his waist and headed out with him. I then grabbed the 2nd man and said, “You WILL do the same!” He protested but adrenaline was flowing now and he was going to go. As I escorted him forward the plane doors open and 3 TSA agents and 4 police officers entered. Me and my new Texan friend were told to cease and desist for they had this under control. I was happy to oblige actually. There was some commotion in the back, but within moments, all 11 were escorted off the plane. They then unloaded their luggage.

Read the whole thing, then if you're skeptical....

Look at the incident from the other end as witness by Chaplain Dr. Keith A. Robinson, Corps Commander of the Houston Regional Community Chaplain Corps:

Facts am Hard

Today's column by Leonard Pitts isn't the dumbest thing I've ever read, but I can't think of what is.

Lots of people are outraged by the Obama Administration decision to remove Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, et al from the military tribunal system and try the admitted terrorists before a federal civilian court but columnist Leonard Pitts is all for the decision and he chastises those who are against the decision as having an ulterior motive for the criticism:

Indeed, if critics of Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try him and his terrorist confederates in a New York City courtroom would be honest with themselves, they'd admit that this is what drives their condemnation, not questions of security, fears of acquittal or other obfuscatory concerns they've raised.

No, the baseline here is the understandable belief that these thugs, these gangsters of Islam, have no right to a trial, that the American legal system, with all its protections for the accused, all its rights and procedures and niceties, is more than they deserve.

Is Mr. Pitts familiar with how our legal system works? Has he heard of the terms ‘jurisdiction,’ ‘custody,’ ‘evidence?’ Is he familiar with Miranda?   Does he know anything about war and battlefields?  Does he know anything about intelligence? 

Okay, forget I asked that last question.  And you will forget in a few seconds. 

In order to bolster his position that KSM and friends should be removed from the military tribunal system and tried by a civilian system, Pitts says this:

It's worth remembering that even the architects of the greatest barbarism in history had their day in court. After burning away 11 million lives, the leaders of the Nazi regime found themselves facing not summary execution, but a trial before a military tribunal in Nuremberg, Germany.

So let me see if I can follow Pitts’chain of “logic.”  We don’t want the terrorist moved from military justice system to a civilian one because what we really want is to have them executed without a trial.  But we should stop criticizing the move from a military justice system to a civilian one because even the perpetrators of the Holocaust were subject to military justice.

Too long?  Let me try again.

"Don’t give them Military Justice because I know that you really don’t want have a trial and the Nazis got Military Justice but that was okay."

Better?

No, my head does not hurt--at least not today.

(Thanks to Hot Air)

A Different Kind of Ice Cream

There use to be a mosque near my home, but the adherents have since move their digs to Crenshaw Boulevard. 

The congregants were all black and but I’m not sure if they were Black Muslims (Explanation: back in the day, the distinction “Black Muslim” indicated that the persons under discussion belonged to the Nation of Islam and therefore subscribed to the ideology set forth by Elijah Muhammad—an ideology considered an anathema to other Muslims.  These days, the term merely means a Muslim who is black, that is, they may be NOI adherents or they may not be. I make the distinction to indicate that I did not see anything other than black people coming and going from that mosque, but that's not a surprising thing in South Central Los Angeles and, therefore, no indication of whether the mosque belonged to NOI or not.)

A number of years ago, four perhaps, something occurred that, up until a few weeks ago, I've thought about every now and then.  However, since the terror attack on Fort Hood and the revelations regarding the prior behavior of its perpetrator, I have been thinking of that four-year-old something nearly every day.

At midday, I was in the back of the house in my office—blogging, of course.  At some point, a noise entered my consciousness.  It was a voice, a tinned one and, as I listened I became aware of three things: that the voice was male, that it was coming out of a bullhorn and that it was repeating the same phrase over and over again.  However, I could not make out the words at first.

As the volume decreased, I originally thought that the origin of the voice had moved on.  But it had only gone around the block a few times.  Finally, the origin of the voice came back around on my street and, apparently, the driver decided to park for a few minutes almost directly in front of my house. The unintelligible phrase was being repeated once more.  And once again.

Finally I got up from in front of my computer, went to the front of the house, peered through the blinds of the large picture window in the living room and…froze.

The voice was coming from speakers attached to the type of truck that is sometimes used by ice cream vendors. The truck was spotlessly clean and gleaming white except for the design on the side: the huge blood-red star-and-crescent symbol of Islam.

The occupant had been exhorting the residents of this neighborhood using a two-sentence phrase, most of which I have blocked out of my memory.  But I do remember one part and, really, it’s the only relevant part.  The occupant was advising us to…

“Embrace Islam.” 

By the time I gained the presence of mind to grab a camera, the gleaming white truck had moved on.  I haven't seen it since.

From the time that it came to light the Major Nidal Malik Hasan basically warned the FBI and the Army of what he was--if not of what he was about to do—I’ve been thinking of that “ice cream” truck and what that particular vendor was selling.  Aren't Jihadis required to warn their infidel foes and invite them to convert before any attack?

“Embrace Islam,” he said.  Left unspoken was the alternative.

UPDATE: Robert Spencer says that it's called a dawah truck.

UPDATE:  Welcome, AboveTopSecret.com denizens.  Two things: 1) Those who know me know that I don't believe in subtlety except as a writing style and 2) I'm not a guy.

Intent

A symptom of stupidity?

In a meeting with the press in China, President Obama said that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be "convicted" and had "the death penalty applied to him" . . . and then said he wasn't "pre-judging" the case. He made the second statement after it was pointed out to him — by NBC's Chuck Todd — that the first statement would be taken as the president's interfering in the trial process. Obama said that wasn't his intention.

Or is it merely a window into viewing intent?  My premise on asking the last question is this:  Obama wants to destroy this country and, to that end, destroy or weaken the things which make this country great.  Two things which make this country great-- its philosophy of jurisprudence and its due process --will be weakened by the venue alone of the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and friends.  So President Obama can be as careless about commenting on the prospective outcome of the trial as he is about every other item that is part of American Exceptionalism. 

He does, however, think everyone else is stupid, as does Attorney General Eric Holder.  That’s why the two keep assuring the public that these terrorists will be "convicted and get the death penalty." That’s why the AG says irrelevant things about “not being scared” when questioned about the venue decision before the Senate Judiciary Committee.  The two play on the emotions of the public but never address what will happen as a result of this trial; they think that all the public cares about is hanging these terrorists.  (Secretary Clinton was dead-on message yesterday.)  They think that the outcome is what matters to us and that we don’t care how the guilty/death penalty destination is reached, that we don't care about the process.  But in reality this is how they feel—all Leftists believe in outcome-based decision making.   (Need an example? The Community Reinvestment Act.)  The problem with outcome-based decision making is that it almost always produces an outcome not foreseen and one which is almost always detrimental--usual inadvertently.

In this case, however, the verdict of a civilian court trial of KSM et al. will not matter a whit to President Obama and Attorney General Holder.  If the trial remains in civilian court and it begins, their intended destination will have already been reached. 

As a result of such a trial, all the rules to which courts and, therefore, judges and lawyers previously adhered will be openly thrown out of the window.  Forget about the terrorists for a second; I’m talking about the rules as they apply to you and to me.  Venues changed at whim; double jeopardy; anonymous accusers--you name it.  Precedent is being set and the name of that precedent is…chaos.  Nothing will kill an organization—or a nation—faster.

Whether the defendants are found guilty or innocent not guilty, we are in grave danger, both from those who openly hate what this country stands for and those who secretly do.

The ensuing chaos is the detrimental outcome intended and it's not such a secret anymore.

UPDATE: Holder admits that there's no real reason to change the KSM trial venue, no legal one, that is:

I have thought about that possibility [of an acquittal]. Congress has passed legislation that would not allow the release of these individuals in this country. If there is not a successful conclusion to this trial, that would not mean that this person would be released into this country…

It will be a show trial--a stab in the heart of the legal tradition in this country.

And where would KSM go if he is acquitted and is unable to settle into a nice loft in Lower Manhattan? Back to Afghanistan/Pakistan, no doubt, where it all began and where he can train the next generation of Soldiers of Allah using supplies and facilities bought with Major Nidal Malik Hasan's Army pay.

Lovely.

 

Malevolent Outcomes

Over at Hot Air, Allahpundit puts up a video of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton being interviewed by David Gregory on NBC’s Meet the Press yesterday morning and notes that she appears to at least give lip service to agreeing with the Obama Administration’s decision to try admitted 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Muhammad and his cohorts in civilian federal court--in a venue located within walking distance of the site where the World Trade Center towers once stood.  Not really a surprise.

But Secretary Clinton said something which I think needs to be highlighted.  Here’s a cut of the transcript from Real Clear Politics:

SEC'Y CLINTON: … I'm not going to second guess any decision that the attorney general made. But I think it's important that Mayor Bloomberg, that our law enforcement officials in New York, you know, all believe that New York City not only can handle this, but that it is appropriate to go forward in the very area where these people launched this horrific attack against us. You know, I was a senator from New York, and I, I want to see them brought to justice. The most important thing for me is that, you know, they pay the ultimate price for what they did to us on 9/11. And if the attorney general and, and veteran prosecutors think this is the best way to achieve that outcome, then I think that, you know, they should be given the, the right to move forward as they see appropriate.

(Emphasis mine.)

The outcome is the most important thing to Secretary Clinton and to the administration for which she works.  The appropriateness of jurisdiction and venue  doesn’t matter.  The rules of evidence don’t matter.  Nothing matters except for the outcome and the outcome which Secretary Clinton claims to want is death for KSM and his boys.  So if it isn’t important that the proper process be followed when determining the fate of these…these…these  human beings…if the process is secondary to the outcome then why are they bothering? 

Because I think we all know of an even better way that the “ultimate price” outcome can be achieved.

However, isn’t proper and due process supposed to be of the utmost of importance when an individual find him/her fate under review by a given court?  Aren’t the rules, rather than the outcome, supposed to be at the crown jewels of the legal edifice of this country?

If these Jihadis get the death penalty in this court, our problems are not over but are just beginning and not just those which will be caused by their brethren.

Once the  process is thrown out, once the rules are thrown out, once the outcome becomes the most important factor in making legal decisions, all bets are off.  Americans will be just as subject to outcome-based jurisprudence (again) as it appears that KSM will be.  That’s one of the most important reasons that President Obama and Attorney General Holder want GITMO closed and the prisoners thereof subject to US law and granted the rights which all those on American soil enjoy.

Another thing: Secretary Clinton, et al. are also giving lip service to wanting a guilty verdict.  One word: Miranda.  That's  proof in a nutshell that they have other endgames in mind.

Sand in the Tent

Last year, Gerard Vanderleun, J.B. White and I discussed how betrayal has become celebrated or, at the very least, expected.  Great and small treacheries, when publicized, are pretty much given the ho-hum treatment by the Old Media and, indeed, by the public at large.

Did that change with the terror attack perpetrated last week by Major Nidal Malik Hasan? In spite of the calls by some average citizens for the United States Army officer to be charged with treason for shooting down other United States Army officers, NCOs, soldiers and others, I’m not so sure.

One of the discussions that has stemmed from the attack is the surprise that US military members don’t walked around armed all the time.  (Aside: I had long known about this misconception and had used it to my advantage by bumper-sticker advertising my veteran status.  For a lone female Southern California driver, it’s a survival necessity.) Close on the heels of that surprise follows outrage at this policy.   This outrage speaks to a gap in perception about the military, how its members think of a military base located in the USA and how we think of each other.

Simply put, a stateside military base is considered a home and those allowed to enter that home are considered family.  On a military base there are no drive-by shootings, no burglaries, no carjackings, no muggings, etc.  In that area of strictly-regulated entry, everyone is considered your brother, your sister or at least your friend even if you’ve never met them.

And that strict regulation is backed up by a personnel assigned and trained to protect that area of land: a military police force and/or a DOD-contracted force Police Force*--armed of course.  And that area is patrolled by these forces, along with being surrounded by fencing topped with barbed wire.

So when I hear civilians and even some military members express outrage that no one other than law enforcement was armed when the Fort Hood Soldier of Allah attacked, I submit that they are reacting from anger rather than thinking through the implications of the necessity of having every military member go armed on a domestic military base.

It would be like having to wear a sidearm in your house to defend yourself against your parents, your spouse, your siblings and your children.  If you can’t trust your family, you can trust no one.  And, outside of the fourteen murdered, that is the mostly galling aspect of Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s jihad against those wearing the same uniform as he.

Those angry at the fact that no one was armed other than the fort’s law enforcement personnel either don’t know or forget that there exists various types of adhesive that make the United States Military the most fearsome force in the world.  Many of the angry have learned to take treachery for granted.  But we—military members and veterans—do not.

If we have to arm soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines against the potential betrayal of other soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines then I would say that one of our enemies’ goals has been reached: a weakening of the bonds which exist between brothers and sisters wearing the uniform.  It still may be necessary to do it, but something essential will have been tainted if not lost. 

The concepts of loyalty, trust and an oath-keeping brotherhood have been severely damaged by Major Hasan and those above him in his chain of command. 

Can we get that back? Only time, circumstances and action will tell.

Funeral of Army Staff Sergeant Amy Krueger

Godspeed to the Fort Hood Martyrs whose lives are being remembered today.

*My brother-in-law, a DOD police officer, corrects. Sergeants Kimberly Munley and Mark Todd are DOD police officers.

Two More Stirs of the Pot

 President Obama decides to throw out the advice of US military commanders and make no decision about the way forward in Afghanistan—thus making a decision.  This no-decision decision will appear one way to our enemies, especially the enemy known as Islamism: President Obama is, once again, making the United States look weak.  Someone at one of the many sites I frequent called the president’s now-familiar tactic “baring one’s jugular to a wolf.”  I almost added “…hoping that the wolf will show compassion,” and, thereby, falling into the trap that so many do when discussing President Obama’s actions and motives: assuming that the man has the best intentions toward the country he was elected to lead.

And today, the decision to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Soldiers of Allah in civilian federal court located in New York City comes to the fore.   Aside from the jumble of legal jurisdiction problems of putting military combatants before a civilian court and providing them with the rights that Americans and other civilians enjoy while in this country, it will be necessary to publicize classified material and methods.  And, in addition, bringing these enemies from Guantanamo Bay to NYC will endanger New Yorkers.  If you don’t think that other Soldiers of Allah are champing at the bit for this process to begin, you’re not paying attention.

President Obama means to bring this country to its knees so that he can consolidate power over it. And these two decisions are meant to embolden our enemies to act.

Attorney General Eric Holder is set to make a statement about this decision this morning.  I can’t wait to hear his usual quality of logic.

 UPDATE: Andy McCarthy

We are now going to have a trial that never had to happen for defendants who have no defense. And when defendants have no defense for their own actions, there is only one thing for their lawyers to do: put the government on trial in hopes of getting the jury (and the media) spun up over government errors, abuses and incompetence. That is what is going to happen in the trial of KSM et al. It will be a soapbox for al-Qaeda's case against America. Since that will be their "defense," the defendants will demand every bit of information they can get about interrogations, renditions, secret prisons, undercover operations targeting Muslims and mosques, etc., and — depending on what judge catches the case — they are likely to be given a lot of it. The administration will be able to claim that the judge, not the administration, is responsible for the exposure of our defense secrets. And the circus will be played out for all to see — in the middle of the war. It will provide endless fodder for the transnational Left to press its case that actions taken in America's defense are violations of international law that must be addressed by foreign courts. And the intelligence bounty will make our enemies more efficient at killing us.

[Emphasis mine. More added to the McCarthy quote, which needs no further commentary.]

In Memoriam

Backstabber (UPDATED)

Well.  I had planned to keep the Tale of the Tigers post at the top for a couple of days longer but yesterday’s Fort Hood, Texas murder spree perpetrated by Major Nidal Malik Hasan demands commentary—especially since I sort of predicted that such events would occur and are, in fact, being encouraged by the president’s vacillation regarding Afghanistan.

Hasan, 39 and a military psychiatrist whose medical education was paid for by the U.S. Army of which he is a member, is a native-born American and a Muslim.  According to reports today, he walked into a Readiness Center at the fort, got up on a table and began firing.  This Readiness Center is the place where soldiers who are about to deploy get counseling to assure that their home affairs are in order before they go to places like Afghanistan, or anywhere out of the country, for that matter.  Fort Hood’s Readiness Center has cubicles in it, so when Hasan was shooting, he was firing at the tops of heads.  The result:  12 dead yesterday, one more dead today and 30 wounded. Some of the dead and wounded were shot in the back.

One of the wounded is local civilian  DOD police officer Kimberly Munley, who exchanged fire with Hasan and stopped the increase of his body count.   Both survived, but Hasan is unconscious and on life support. According to reports this morning, Hasan yelled “Allah u Akbar” as he fired.

It’s difficult to fight the impulse to hatred and vengeance for this one.

More than that, this incident takes us back to when another Muslim called Hasan turned on his fellow soldiers.  Recalling that, I began to wonder how often U.S. military have turned their weapons on those who trusted them most.

I can’t recall any others but these two incidents but I would appreciate it if someone would point them out.

In the meantime, I hope that this particular Hasan lives to face those whom he has betrayed--those who survived, that is.

UPDATE:

Patterico:

[A retired colonel who worked with Hasan at the Fort Hood psyche ward] heard Hasan say that “maybe the Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor” in Iraq and Afghanistan. He also heard Hasan comment that he was “almost sort of happy” about a shooting at a Little Rock recruitment center.

The colonel confirms that Hasan was about to be deployed but did not say whether it was to be to Iraq or Afghanistan.

UPDATE:  Sergeant Kimberly Munley, civilian police officer, Heroine.

Munley, who had been trained in active-response tactics, rushed into the building and confronted the shooter as he was turning a corner, [Lt. General Bob] Cone said.

"It was an amazing and an aggressive performance by this police officer," Cone said.

Munley was only a few feet from crazed Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan when she opened fire.

Wounded in the exchange of gunfire, Munley was reported in stable condition at a local hospital.

Someone at Ace's mentioned that it's a bit of poetic justice that this particular Islamist (yes) was taken down by a woman.  I concur.

Inciting Attack

This is what he has planned for all those who love and protect America and, ultimately, for America itself:  failure…

KABUL – Eight American troops were killed in two separate bomb attacks Tuesday in southern Afghanistan, making October the deadliest month of the war for U.S. forces since the 2001 invasion to oust the Taliban.

In one of the insurgent assaults, seven Americans were killed while patrolling in armored vehicles, U.S. forces spokesman Lt. Col. Todd Vician said. He said an Afghan civilian died in the same attack. The eighth American was killed in a separate bombing elsewhere in the south, also while patrolling in a military vehicle, he said.

…and demoralization.

[L]ast month, in a move that has sent ripples all the way to the White House, [Foreign Service Officer Matthew] Hoh, 36, became the first U.S. official known to resign in protest over the Afghan war, which he had come to believe simply fueled the insurgency.

"I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States' presence in Afghanistan," he wrote Sept. 10 in a four-page letter [pdf] to the department's head of personnel. "I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end."

Mr. Hoh is also a former Marine captain who served in Iraq.

When President Obama stated that he would continue until November to dither about General McCrystal’s request for an additional 40,000 troops, a child could have predicted that such an announcement would embolden both the Taliban and al Qaeda. 

Does anyone remember that we went into Afghanistan to clean out the nests of terrorists who perpetrated the attacks of 9/11?

It’s easy to see that the president is trying to lose Afghanistan.  But the loss would simply be another stab at the old America that the president wants to smother and would assist in making way for the America he wants to shape in his own image.

Will this wake America up?

President Obama has already floated the idea of a national police force, something we have done without for more than two centuries.

Helmeted, body-armored feds knocking on American doors—would that do it?

How much more foreign policy leg-spreading and domestic forging of tyranny does the president have to perpetrate before we see that we’ve been had?

Wait a minute.

If we flake out in Afghanistan, it won’t just embolden Islamists overseas…it will embolden those living here.

When the Mumbai terrrorist attacks happened, most observers concluded that such a thing would never occur here because too many American citizens go about armed—even in leftist utopias like my home state.  In Mumbai, armed Islamists ran wild for days.  Here, the duration would be roughly eight hours, max (about two in places like Oklahoma).

But what if Islamist did try a Mumbai-style attack here?  Would that give President Obama the excuse to create his SA…er…National Police Force? (Godwin can bite me.)

Is this what Vice President Biden was talking about last October?

Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. And he's gonna have to make some really tough - I don't know what the decision's gonna be, but I promise you it will occur. [snip]

[I]t's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right. Because all these decisions, all these decisions, once they're made if they work, then they weren't viewed as a crisis. If they don't work, it's viewed as you didn't make the right decision...

(Maybe it's what the then vice president-elect only thought he was talking about.)

Pretty soon all such questions will have their answers.  I think that most of them do already.

(Thanks to the Drudge Report and to Instapundit)

PREVIOUSLY:  Told Ya So

UPDATE: One supposes that this is mere coincidence:

KABUL – Gunmen with automatic weapons and suicide vests stormed a guest house used by U.N. staff in the heart of the Afghan capital early Wednesday, killing at least seven people including three U.N. staff, officials said. A Taliban spokesman claimed responsibility, saying it was meant as an assault on the upcoming presidential election.

No, I don't think so either.

Read This

Let Them Fight or Bring Them Home

Read all of it--and tell every American you know to do so.

(Thanks to BMEWS)

UPDATE: The author of the above blog is John Bernard.  Bernard's son is the late Lance Corporal Joshua Bernard.  If the latter name rings a bell, it should. The Associated Press published a photo of Corporal Bernard as he bled to death after being mortally wounded by a Taliban rocket.

Told Ya So

Told ya so (August 1, 2007).

This is the deal: if we leave Iraq prematurely, bailing out of Afghanistan will shortly follow. If that happens things will get worse here—and I’m not just referring to the terrorists. Because if the terrorists either follow us home or the ones already here get the signal to act, the Left—who continues to ignore all the precursors to 9/11 and, therefore, has never believed Islamists when they say that their only goal is to kill, convert or subdue the world to Islam--will find a way to blame that on Bush and, yes, on the military.

And if that happens, we're all screwed.

Told ya so (August 20, 2007).

And yes, [the Leftists] want us out of Afghanistan too, no matter what they say.

Told ya so (February 25, 2008).

Don't forget, both Senators Clinton and Obama want us out of Iraq immediately and I contend that they're building up to calling for the withdrawal from Afghanistan--that's what Obama's contention regarding ammo shortages in Afghanistan was about. He heralded the beginning of a narrative.

Told ya so (April 15, 2008).

[T]he anti-war Left is building up to the point at which it can characterize Afghanistan in the same manner as it has done with Iraq—as a lost cause. I’ve seen the rhetorical beginnings of it here and there (and I think [AP chairman Dean] Singleton's aborted question was part of that) but no one prominent is ready to say it straight out. The foundation hasn’t been sufficiently laid yet.

I say that the overt denigration of our efforts in Afghanistan is on the way (and, no, it won’t have to make sense). Why? Because every Bush effort must be demonized and scrapped--every single one, even the so-called righteous War.

The Bush edifice must be torn down. Feel free to tell me that I'm wrong.

Told ya so (September 22, 2009 by Allahpundit).

Serious question about their “good [Afghanistan] war” lie: Was it really a lie if no one was fooled? [snip]

Feigning support for a mission launched in response to 9/11 to win an election is one thing; shrugging about it afterwards is another, and goes way, way beyond “blithe” unless you’re a stalwart dove or the type of see-no-evil sucker who laps up leftist canards about how Sunni and Shiite jihadists would never work together. But save the outrage: The lesson to draw, especially if you’re an independent, is that Democrats can’t be trusted to prosecute even a “good war,” even if it’s one that they explicitly promised to prosecute. Internalize that point, because I promise, it’s being internalized in Iran and Russia as I write this.

Lawlessness Revisited

Michelle Malkin on the White House Drop-a-Dime Program:

 

This week, President Obama’s health care overlord launched a taxpayer-funded initiative to recruit an Internet Snitch Brigade that will combat “disinformation about health insurance reform.” As the White House explained in a special online bulletin:

 

“These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag[-at]whitehouse[-dot-]gov.”

 

What will health care czar Nancy DeParle do with this information? Where will it be stored? Who has oversight of the czar’s powers, budget, and personnel? Concerned citizens, alas, will have a hard time tracking down the “Office of Health Care Reform” created by executive order in April. There is no central website for the office, no direct channel for transparency, and no congressional accountability.

 

At least one member of Congress has started asking questions. Texas GOP Sen. John Cornyn sent a letter to President Obama demanding that he disband the Internet Snitch Brigade immediately: “By requesting citizens send ‘fishy’ emails to the White House, it is inevitable that the names, email, addresses, IP addresses and private speech of U.S.citizens will be reported to the White House,” Sen. Cornyn wrote. “You should not be surprised that these actions taken by your White House staff raise the specter of a data collection program.”

 

By take the authoritarian action of asking others to rat out their friends and acquaintances and enemies merely for having a different opinion than he does, President Obama has put himself in a bind.   Stemming from the debacle that was Watergate, it is  illegal for any agency of the federal government to maintain personal data on persons who are merely exercising their God-given (not government-given) rights.  

 

(e) Agency Requirements.— Each agency that maintains a system of rec­ords shall—…

(7) maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity;

However, since Drop-a-Dime was implemented days ago, the White House has likely been gathering countless bits of data on countless citizens and guess what?  It is also illegal for the White House to dispose of correspondence data.

 

Well.  Now that I think it through a bit more, the White House isn’t in such a bind after all.  See, it should be obvious by now that this Administration can, has and will override law and protocol without having to brave the protest of the institutions designated to constrain it, Senator Cornyn notwithstanding.

 

Because our leaders have failed us or have been rendered nearly powerless, it has been up to the People to push back against the Great Burglary of the U.S. economy, its latest incarnation being Healthcare Reform or Health Insurance Reform or whatever it’s being called today.  But like any other thief, these Thieves get angry when you don’t just allow them to mug you or snatch your purse.  They will try to beat you down.

Kenneth [Gladney]  was attacked on the evening of August 6, 2009 at Rep. Russ Carnahan’s town hall meeting in South St. Louis County. I was at the town hall meeting as well and witnessed the events leading up to the attack of Kenneth. Kenneth was approached by an [Service Employees International Union] representative as Kenneth was handing out “Don’t Tread on Me” flags to other conservatives. The SEIU representative demanded to know why a black man was handing out these flags. The SEIU member used a racial slur against Kenneth, then punched him in the face. Kenneth fell to the ground. Another SEIU member yelled racial epithets at Kenneth as he kicked him in the head and back. Kenneth was also brutally attacked by one other male SEIU member and an unidentified woman. The three men were clearly SEIU members, as they were wearing T-shirts with the SEIU logo.

Kenneth was beaten badly. One assailant fled on foot; three others were arrested. Kenneth was admitted to St. John’s Mercy Medical Center emergency room, where he was treated for his numerous injuries. Kenneth was merely expressing his freedom of speech by handing out the flags. In fact, he merely asked people as they exited the town hall meeting whether they would like a flag. He in no way provoked any argument or altercation, as evidenced by the fact that three assailants were arrested.

 

Krav Maga here I come.  The Israelis always make good stuff.

 

A physical attack by Union thugs may seem vastly different from the collection and holding of data about peaceful dissenters by the highest government official in the land but the difference lies only in scope.  The two concepts spring from the exact same ideological origin: the origin of entitlement.  The Obama Administration is entitled to all the power that it can gather and wield, the will of the People be damned and the law of land be damned. Oh and God-bestowed rights?  Well "god-d*mn them" too.

 

Is it clear to all what we’re dealing with here?  No, I don’t think that it is.  But one day, sooner than anyone can imagine, no one will be able to deny what’s been right in front of their eyes all along.

 

(Thanks to Bill Wilson)

PREVIOUSLY: Lawlessness

 

UPDATE: "I don’t want the folks who created the mess [sic] to do a lot of talking" --President Barack Obama

 

 

With all due respect, Mr. President, when it comes to the redress of grievances by American citizens to their government, what you want is irrelevant. These questions remain, however: what will you do and how far will you go to get what you want--in this and all other matters of gaining and holding onto power? 

(Thanks to Hot Air)

It's As If They're Trying to Provoke an Attack at Home

The House of Representatives will investigate the Sheepdogs…

WASHINGTON — The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee says his panel will investigate whether the CIA broke the law by not telling Congress earlier about a secret [non-operational] program to deploy hit teams to kill individual al-Qaida members.

As the Wolves nibble at the edges…

JAKARTA, Indonesia — Homicide bombers posing as guests attacked American luxury hotels in Indonesia's capital and set off a pair of blasts Friday after evading hotel security, smuggling explosives into the Marriott and assembling the bombs in a room on the 18th floor, where an undetonated device was found after the explosions.

The bombers had stayed at the hotel for two days and set off the blasts in restaurants at both hotels. The blasts killed eight people and wounded more than 50, authorities said. At least eight Americans were among the wounded.

And what is this horse manure?

A senior U.S. official told ABC News the [Jakarta] attacks came as a "surprise."

A second U.S. counter-terrorism official said the CIA and other intelligence agencies had given no indication to the White House of "any threat reporting in the last 18 months" involving the Indonesian al Qaeda affiliate, Jemaah Islamiyah.

And if some fine, upstanding CIA operative had blasted the suicide bombers before they self –detonated, would the House be gearing up to investigate him and his superiors right now?

I dreamed I saw a great wave climbing over green lands and above the hills. I stood upon the brink. It was utterly dark in the abyss before my feet. A light shone behind me but I could not turn. I could only stand there, waiting.

--Lord of the Rings

Yes we're all waiting--waiting for that grand betrayal. It will be in the Spirit of the Times.

(Sheepdog/wolf metaphors courtesy of Bill Whittle)

The Family Hero

Private Quinton Ezeagwula, the young soldier who survived the Arkansas terror attack committed by the Islamist Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, is shocked that people are calling him a hero,  but his mother, Sonja Ezeagwula says that he's a good kid who beat the odds in many ways.

She said her son stayed away from gangs and drugs as a youth and was doing something positive. "He was supposed to have been a statistic from a dysfunctional family. Look what happened."

The Ezeagwulas also think the world of the late Private William Long's family and Private Ezeagwula's mother is

"overwhelmed with how much love Americans have for this country. I really am. And I'm glad I got a chance to see it."

She said her family is Christian, "and we believe when something happens, God will turn it around," and good will come of it.

Amen.

Late and Short

An offhand remark from the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces issued while he's not even on American soil:

I am deeply saddened by this senseless act of violence against two brave young soldiers who were doing their part to strengthen our armed forces and keep our country safe. I would like to wish Quinton Ezeagwula a speedy recovery, and to offer my condolences and prayers to William Long’s family as they mourn the loss of their son.

Is this statement on the White House site?  The statement about the Tiller murder was.

It's well past the point where President Obama has to front as if he cares about those whom he commands.  However, this afterthought is almost worse than saying nothing at all.

(Thanks to Michelle Malkin)

Interview with Private William Long's Father

From a former Marine. Look and Listen.

But what of the young man's Commander-in-Chief?

(Thanks to Blackfive)

'I am the Surge'

Vets for Freedom produces an ad demanding that the Democratic Party--specifically its leader, Barack Obama--acknowledge the success of Iraq Surge and, therefore, its authors, the United States Armed Forces:

Senate Resolution 636

(Thanks to Hot Air)

Al Qaeda's 1998 Attacks on Africa

Ten years ago today--using the time-tested truck-bomb method--Islamists blew up the American embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The toll: in Nairobi 213 dead—of that number 12 were American; in Dar es Salaam 11 dead—all Africans—and 85 wounded.

From the Kenya attack, over 4500 were wounded, 150 were blinded.

From the Lawrence Wright’s The Looming Tower:

Beyond the obvious goal of calling attention to the existence of al Qaeda, the point of the bombings was vague and confusing. The Nairobi operation was named after the Holy Kaaba in Mecca; the Dar es Salaam bombing was called al-Aqsa, after the mosque in Jerusalem; neither had an obvious connection to the American embassies in Africa. Bin Laden put forward several explanations for the attack. He initially said that the sites had been target because of the “invasion” of Somalia; then he described an American plan to partition Sudan, which he said was hatched in the embassy in Nairobi. He also told his followers that the genocide in Rwanda had been planned inside the two American embassies.

That would be funny if it didn't make me nauseous.

Muslims all over the world greeted the bombings with horror and dismay. The deaths of so many people, most of them Africans, many of them Muslims, created a furor. Bin Laden said that the bombings gave the Americans a taste of the atrocities that Muslims had experienced. But to most of the world and even to some members of al-Qaeda, the attacks seemed pointless, a showy act of mass murder with no conceivable effect on American policy except to provoke a massive response.

But that, as it turned out, was exactly the point.

Wright says that bin Laden had been trying to get the Americans to come and get him in Afghanistan, figuring that, if he killed enough Americans we would. (We know what happened afterward and what is still happening, but I don’t want to make this post too much about Americans.)

I contend that there was another point. Al Qaeda did it for the same reason they do everything else. Evil is almost always its own point.

Kenya’s Daily Nation has, of course, been commemorating the attacks.

Nairobi’s Day of Horror Recalled

Nairobi. 10:40am. Friday August 7, 1998. First came two explosions, then the mighty sonic boom, the ground shook and the skies over a corner of the city darkened with a mushroom cloud.

As the smoke and dust cleared, tonnes of paper thrown up by the blast wafted lazily over the city, coming down in slow pirouettes that belied the force of the explosion that had sent them into the sky. By the time New York got its 9/11, Nairobi already had its August 7, a date of horror etched in the collective memory of millions of Kenyans.

When the dust had cleared 213 innocents, nearly all of them Kenyans, lay dead.

The target of the terrorist attack, the US embassy, a stout, solid, fortress by the Haile Sellasie Avenue-Moi Avenue-Kenya Railways roundabout, was still standing defiant, but a mere shell gutted into the insides. Twelve American and 31 other embassy staff, nearly all Kenyans, lost their lives.

Adjacent to the embassy building, the taller 7-story Ufundi Cooperative House [containing a secretarial college], not constructed to withstand bomb attacks, had crumbled to the ground.

(Emphasis mine.)

Sound familiar?

More:

How the Nairobi Terror Attack was Planned

Victims: Only the Scars Have Died
“We forgive you, but we have not forgotten.”

Personally speaking, I learned quickly that none of my immediate family had been injured. Though I had never met any of them at the time, this was a great relief to me. The American response to the attack, however, made my then ongoing transformation from Democrat to Republican irreversible.

Many things were galling about the attacks, but one was the fact that Africans—Kenyans and Tanzanians—weren’t even the targets of the bombings but took most of the casualties. (This was also the case with the 2002 Mombasa attacks; Israelis were the targets.)

To quote myself:

I liken [al-Qaeda attitude toward the terror attacks in Africa] to a demolition company destroying a building. Who cares if the "vermin" in it are destroyed along with the building? For that is the cultural view that [many? most?] Arab Muslims hold for blacks, even for those blacks who are foolish enough to believe that being Muslims themselves will save them. Sudan, anyone?

At any rate, my heart goes out to those who are still feeling the physical, emotional and spiritual pain caused by those attacks. At least one of your American friends is thinking of you today, Kenya, and I know for a fact that I am far from alone.

Milblogs TV: Anbar Rising

Part 1 Part 2

Associated Press: US is Winning the Iraq War

You don't say!

Despite the occasional bursts of violence, Iraq has reached the point where the insurgents, who once controlled whole cities, no longer have the clout to threaten the viability of the central government.

That does not mean the war has ended or that U.S. troops have no role in Iraq. It means the combat phase finally is ending, years past the time when President Bush optimistically declared it had. The new phase focuses on training the Iraqi army and police, restraining the flow of illicit weaponry from Iran, supporting closer links between Baghdad and local governments, pushing the integration of former insurgents into legitimate government jobs and assisting in rebuilding the economy.

Notice that the authors still couldn't resist taking a shot at the president.

The following gentlemen asked and answered the question about possible victory in Iraq long before AP woke up:

• Michael Yon

• Michael Totten

• Greyhawk

One wonders why AP is admitting the truth now.

(Thanks to the other AP)

Joe Klein Clutches His Pearls

Dan Riehl:

Ever notice how [some] liberals talk tough and pretend to be looking for a fight, then turn into whiny little biatches the minute you hit back?

Yes, I have and it doesn't matter what the topic is.

However, in this case the liberal in question is Joe Klein and the topic is John McCain. Specifically, Klein refers to McCain's words today regarding Barack Obama's...nuanced...approach to determining whether the Surge tactic has served its purpose or not as a 'meltdown.' Really? To me, 'meltdown' equals crazy and/or mind-bogglingly illogical. Were McCain's words either of those? Let's see if this is so.

In response to Obama's admission that, knowing what he knows now, he would have still been against the Surge prior to its onset, McCain comes to a conclusion about his opponent:

This is a clear choice that the American people have. I had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.

Is this reasonable? Or is it "scurrillous?"

Obama's advisers have surmised that if their candidate admits error about his judgment in the matter, his base--the anti-warriors of the hard Left--will turn against him. In addition, the advisers are worried about those delegates to the Democrat National Convention--Hillary Clinton hasn't released hers yet. Who knows what would happen to them were Obama to repudiate his previous position regarding Iraq? (Notice I said that these are the advisers' concerns. The candidate himself isn't sweating this stuff.)

And then there's the fact that, in 2005, Obama was against withdrawing troops from Iraq.

Interviewer: But you said that troops should be withdrawn.

Obama: No, no. I’ve never said that troops should be withdrawn. What I’ve said is that we’ve got to make sure that we secure and execute the rebuilding and reconstruction process effectively and properly and I don’t think we should have an artificial deadline when to do that. What’s important is that we have a long-term plan in process and short-term security strategy.

(Emphasis mine.)

It's quite reasonable to conclude that Senator Obama would say anything to get elected, regardless of the effect that his words might have on the outcome of world-changing events--like wars. He has proved that he has no problem with contradicting himself without offering an explanation for the contradiction.

Klein:

Readers should note that I said that I can't remember a more scurrilous statement by a major party candidate. Smart politicians leave the scurrilous stuff to their aides; in fact, a McCain spokesman expressed these words almost exactly on July 14. There is a reason why politicians who want to be President don't say these sort of things: It isn't presidential.

So, according to Klein, it's a "meltdown" because it isn't presidential. Whether it's a reasonable conclusion, whether it's the truth, is irrelevant.

That's politics, I suppose.

Then again, Klein's overreaction probably has much simpler explanation. He is probably just angry because someone said something bad about his savior. I understand that, since I get angry when someone slanders my Savior.

But it isn't slander if it's true, now is it?

(Thanks to Blackfive and to Richard Fernandez)

Just Say It!

Barack Obama, after his trip to Iraq:

"Here is what I will say," Obama said, "I think that, I did not anticipate, and I think that this is a fair characterization, the convergence of not only the surge but the Sunni awakening in which a whole host of Sunni tribal leaders decided that they had had enough with Al Qaeda, in the Shii’a community the militias standing down to some degrees. So what you had is a combination of political factors inside of Iraq that then came right at the same time as terrific work by our troops. Had those political factors not occurred, I think that my assessment would have been correct."

Come on, Senator, you can do it.

Obama maintained that his decision was not wrong.

I guess he can't do it. Maybe he's considering the plight of the anti-warriors. That many heads exploding would make a big mess.

Could you be married to a person who can't admit error? No wonder Michelle always seems PO'd. :-)

(Thanks to Ace of Spades HQ)

Milblogs TV--Episode One

(Thanks to Mudville Gazette, of course)

Victory's 1001st Father

You have to "admire" Barack Obama's ability (audacity) to get out in front of a passing parade and become its leader, while MSM entities like Reuters are content to carry on with the months-long process of anointing him.

As he begins his international campaign tour--touching down in Afghanistan today--Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki endorses Obama's post-inaugural plan for Iraq.

BERLIN (Reuters) - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told a German magazine he supported prospective U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months.

In an interview with Der Spiegel released on Saturday, Maliki said he wanted U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible.

"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."

One assumes that the prime minister thinks that the Iraqi Army is ready to keep a steady foot on the necks of domestic extremists and the veracity of this summation is backed up by many other observers. And even if the army is not ready, if the acknowledged government of the country says to go, we have to go.

Regarding Obama, however, this is the issue: if the Iraqi Army is ready to 'stand up' then that state of affairs was made possible by the US Armed Forces troop surge which John McCain helped formulate, which George W. Bush implemented and which Barack Obama vehemently opposed.

So he was wrong. Fine, we are all wrong sometimes, but could he at least say that he was wrong instead of pretending as though he always believed that the surge was going to work?

(Thanks to Memeorandum)

NATO Denies Report of Troop Build-up

Earlier reports that NATO forces were massed at the Afghanistan-Pakistan border to attack Taliban-Qaeda forces based in ungoverned tribally-controlled areas of Pakistan appear to be greatly exaggerated:

BRUSSELS (AFP) — The NATO military alliance denied Wednesday that it was massing troops on the Afghan side of the border with Pakistan but urged Islamabad to do more to stop Taliban militants taking refuge.

"There is not, nor is there going to be, an incursion of NATO troops into Pakistan. There is no planning for that, there is no mandate for that, and there is no troop movement in that direction," a spokesman said in Brussels.

When I read a report of the build-up early this morning, it seemed uncharacteristic of the Pakistanis to allow NATO into the country, so I assumed that NATO was going in without asking.

If NATO were to do that--or the US were to do it unilaterally--what would that mean for Pakistan and the GWOT itself? Pakistan is supposed to be a US ally in the War, but President Pervez Musharraf has been barely hanging on--avoiding numerous assassination attempts. With or without permission, if we infidels come over the country's boarder, he will fall--especially if the reports of Pakistan's army and intelligence service being overrun with terrorists and extremists are true--and the country's nuclear weapons will be at the disposal of Islamists. But what to do about the Taliban and al Qaeda?

BTW, Obama is right about needing to give more attention to Afghanistan. It's his rationale for wanting to do so that's inconsistent; under parallel conditions in Iraq (before he momentarily noticed that the surge had served its purpose) he wanted us to pull out totally.

UPDATE: Afghanistan mini-surge?

Although there are no brigade-sized units that can be deployed quickly into Afghanistan, military leaders believe they can find a number of smaller units such as aviation, engineering and surveillance troops that can be moved more swiftly, said the official, who requested anonymity because the discussions are private.

The moves are expected to happen within weeks rather than months, the official said.

The decisions are being made against the backdrop of shifting priorities for the U.S. military, and were discussed during a meeting Wednesday of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. [snip]

Faced with an increasingly sophisticated insurgency, particularly along Afghanistan's border with Pakistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday that sending more troops would have a significant impact on the violence.