Ineptitude? Imbecility? Ideology? Or All Three?

Posted in Ideology Incompetence Islam Obama Political Cartoon Terrorism with No Comments

More:

Arizona’s New Immigration Law Is Becoming A Prototype For Other States

Arizona’s new immigration law S.B. 1070, which has been relentlessly attacked by many liberals and the news media yet is overwhelmingly supported by Americans, is also serving as the prototype for immigration legislation in several other states as discussed below. Americans are sick and tired of the problems associated with illegal immigration: increased crime and violence, massive unreimbursed costs such as for healthcare, education, welfare, and the judicial system which are presently being paid by us through our tax dollars, burdens on our schools and even what is becoming a ubiquitous finding: bilingual signs and communications.

Despite this, the Obama Administration is fighting this law under the pretense that it necessarily requires “profiling”.  This is not the true reason, however, as the legislation is essentially a replica of the federal law that adds controls to mitigate the “risk” of profiling. (Of course, liberals want to label “profiling” a racist action when in fact profiling represents the most logical, efficient and prudent way to detect what one is looking for which in this situation, are illegal aliens.)

Among the real reasons that Obama is against the law is for political purposes. He wants more of the Hispanic vote. As we have noted in previous posts, the fact that he would intentionally keep the border unsecured which also affords terrorists the ability to sneak into this country, is inexcusable, irresponsible, contemptuous and actions of what could be termed an anti-President.

Let’s reiterate. Obama resolutely refuses to secure our borders for personal political reasons which consequently places America in much greater jeopardy for future terrorism by allowing terrorist to infiltrate undetected into our country. This also financially burdens all 50 states (or in his mind, 57 states) and their citizens who have to bear all the attendant costs associated with these illegals which is estimated to be around $113 billion per year.

And one more thing. Ideology and narcissism aside, the Obama Administration and some liberal groups state that the cost of deporting the entire illegal alien population would be prohibitively expensive – estimated to be $285 billion over 5 years. The cost for them staying here during these 5 years is $565 billion ($113 billion per year times 5 years).

Interesting! We could actually save $280 billion over these five years if these illegal immigrants were sent back where they came from. That is $56 billion per year in net savings which would then jump to more than $113 billion per year after these first 5 years.

No wonder the federal government is against this: it would save us money instead of being a money losing proposition which the Democrats feel more comfortable with!

Arizona Immigration Law Emerges as Model for Other States
July 7, 2010

Arizona’s immigration law, considered controversial by some and under legal assault by the Obama administration, is fast emerging as a popular model in other states where illegal immigration is a hot-button issue.

And while protests against the law have drawn thousands to marches across the country, polls have consistently showed a majority of Americans favor the get-tough approach against illegal immigration.

At least three other states could pass similar legislation next year, and in many others, like Florida, GOP candidates are filming campaign ads and pushing debates favoring the law.

Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah have each taken steps against illegal immigration, and politicians in the three states are advocating further measures when their legislatures reconvene early next year, according to The Washington Post.

Meanwhile, lawmakers in at least 14 other states drew up bills that permit police officers to question anyone they suspect of being in the county illegally – the core issue of the Arizona law.

But it’s an open question in many of those states whether these bills would make it past sitting governors, many of whom are Democrats. In Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah, however, political factors improve the chances that state legislatures could follow Arizona's lead when they convene in 2011, according to the Post.

Oklahoma was actually the first state, not Arizona, to adopt legislation that was the toughest ever against undocumented immigrants. That happened in 2007. The measure made it a felony to knowingly provide transport or shelter to an illegal immigrant, and blocked illegal immigrants from obtaining driver's licenses and tuition.

The lawmaker responsible for the measure, Republican state Rep. Randy Terrill, has said he wants to go even further with another bill next year that would seize property from businesses that knowingly employ undocumented immigrants.

Terrill cited the arrest of an alleged Mexican drug cartel member last week as evidence that an "Arizona-plus" measure is needed urgently. He said the effect of Arizona's law had been to push illegal immigrants "straight down Interstate 40" toward Oklahoma, according to the Post.

In South Carolina, GOP Gov. Mark Sanford touted a comprehensive set of new measures against illegal immigration as the strictest yet when he signed it into law in 2008. The measure forced businesses to check the immigration status of their workers.

Harboring and transporting illegal immigrants also became a state crime. State lawmakers want to build on it and were quick this year to draw up an Arizona-style bill, introducing it less than a week after the Arizona measure had been signed.

"We had a bill that was introduced this year that was very similar to the final version of the Arizona legislation. It was too late for us to move on it, but I have every expectation a new bill will be introduced in January," Republican state Sen. Larry Martin told the Post.

"As long as an officer has a lawful reason to question someone, and then a suspicion develops [that] they are an undocumented person, then I think our law enforcement folks ought to be able to pursue that," he said.

In Utah, pro-immigrant advocates fear that new legislation clamping down on illegal immigration is inevitable next year. Several lawmakers there are advocating a crackdown, according to the Post.

On paper, Arizona's controversial new immigration law is not that different from the federal version. But the key difference is this: Arizona wants every illegal immigrant caught and deported. The federal government says treating all 11 million of the nation's illegal immigrants as criminals would overwhelm the system.

In its lawsuit challenging the Arizona law, the Justice Department says its policy is to focus on dangerous immigrants: gang members, drug traffickers, threats to national security. Law-abiding immigrants without documentation would largely be left alone.

Homeland Security officials say the government cannot possibly find, arrest and deport everyone who is here illegally. And trying to do so would also upset a balance crafted by Congress that takes into account humanitarian interests and foreign relations.

But proponents of the Arizona solution insist that's no reason not to try. And they say the state's toughest-in-the-nation law is a reasonable way to start.

"If it's really the case that they don't have enough resources to enforce the laws that Congress has passed, it would seem it's incumbent on them to go back to Congress and ask for more resources," said Steven Camarota, research director at the center for Immigration Studies, a group that favors stricter enforcement of immigration laws. "But since they don't do that, it sort of undermines the argument."

Arizona's new law is nearly identical to federal immigration law. At issue is how it is enforced. The federal government says the state law is unconstitutional because it usurps federal authority to protect U.S. borders and American citizens. Arizona counters that the federal government is not doing its job, which forces state officials to step in.

State lawmakers argue that the federal government already enlists local authorities to identify illegal immigrants who have been arrested for other crimes. The new law, they say, just extends that to police patrols.

The federal government says the law goes too far by making it a state crime to be in Arizona illegally and requiring police to question the immigration status of anyone they encounter who is believed to be undocumented.

The furor over the Arizona law is overblown, Camarota said Wednesday. It does not envision mass deportations or roundups, just a slow but steady pressure on illegal immigrants to leave Arizona — either for their home countries or for another state.

The number of illegal immigrants in the country fell for the first time this decade in 2007, and dropped another 800,000 between 2008 and 2009, primarily due to the recession and increased enforcement efforts.

As of January 2009, an estimated 10.8 million people were in the country illegally, 1 million less than the 2007 peak, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

Deportations have been increasing, climbing from 185,944 in 2007 to 387,790 last year.

Many critics argue the federal government cannot selectively enforce immigration law, but it's common for law enforcement at all levels to prioritize. Small-time pot dealers do not receive the same level of investigation or prosecution as big-time heroin traffickers. The government has also tolerated medical marijuana in 14 states.

But Arizona's law has brought selective enforcement — and the differences that exist even among police agencies — into clearer focus.

Those differences are stark, even in the Phoenix metro area. Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris says in an affidavit supporting the federal suit that he will probably have to move detectives focused on violent crime to street patrol because regular officers will be busy enforcing Arizona's new law.

But Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who has been at the forefront of the effort to empower local authorities to enforce immigration laws, routinely assigns deputies to crime sweeps where they target illegal immigrants.

The federal government is worried that other states will follow Arizona's lead, overwhelming federal agencies with non-criminal illegal immigrants who will cost the government millions to deport.

A March study by the liberal Center for American Progress estimated that deporting the entire illegal immigration population and securing the borders would cost $285 billion over five years.

In the government lawsuit, officials with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection declared they will be forced to shift resources from major cases to minor ones if the law goes into effect as scheduled on July 29.

Five other lawsuits, filed by immigrant-rights groups, the American Civil Liberties Union and individuals, are already before a federal judge in Phoenix. The federal challenge filed Tuesday is expected to be transferred to the same judge, who has hearings set for next week on requests to block the law from taking effect.

The federal lawsuit focuses on a core constitutional concern — balancing power between the states and the federal government. More specifically, the issue centers on the long-running "pre-emption" legal argument that says federal law trumps state law.

The government sidestepped concerns about the potential for racial profiling and civil rights violations most often raised by immigration advocates. Experts said those are weaker arguments that do not belong in a federal legal challenge.

Material from the Associated Press was used in this story.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/US-Immigration-Enforcement-Lawsuit/2010/07/07/id/364048

Posted in Arizona Democrat Illegal Immigration Liberal Mexico Obama Security with No Comments

More:

The Price That the U.S. and World May Pay Because of Obama’s Ineptness and Lack of Leadership

The world is facing an unprecedented number of apocalyptic threats on several fronts, the most notable being Iran. Many nations are saber rattling and forming pernicious alliances with bellicose nations, often as a consequence of the perceived precipitous demise of the United States’ international prestige and influence resultant from Obama’s reckless and ideologically naïve behavior and comments, absence of any shred of leadership or credibility, ineptness, detachment and lack of resoluteness and common sense.

This is a critical juncture in time that calls for an experienced, sensible, effective and resolute leader of this country. Yes, it would be great to have a Reagan, a Lincoln or even a Churchill. Unfortunately, this country has as its President a man who compares unfavorably even to Jimmy Carter (which previously would have been thought to have been an impossibility) and one who exudes a sentiment of hatred/dislike for America.

He is an unpatriotic Neville Chamberlain with far less to offer. And we know what happened subsequently in WW II.

As a consequence, the United States, Israel and much of the rest of the world will be facing serious existential threats, terrorist attacks and/or wars and catastrophic loss of life.

From Here To Extermination
Investors Business Daily  06/11/2010

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gestures after a news conference in Shanghai, China, at which he dismissed a new U.N. resolution against his... View Enlarged Image

Iran: The new sanctions, already watery before being watered down some more, have been enacted. What do we do now?
Apparently just wait for them not to work.

If insanity can be defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, then the United Nations Security Council, led by the U.S., is conducting a policy against Iran that is dangerously deranged.

Of course, the member states know this fourth round of economic sanctions won't stop Iran's march toward nuclear weapons, any more than the first three have. Indeed, ending Tehran's nuclear program is not why President Obama made a point of getting this ineffectual nonsolution in place. But figuring out the rationality behind why he did isn't easy.

Was it so the president could campaign that "by working with other nations multilaterally, we enacted measures against Iran that are tougher than anything the Bush administration put in place"? (A harder wrist slap is still a wrist slap.)

Was it in the belief that it would force the Iranians into talks — and once the president gets talking to them he'll be able to work his magic, the way he did on American voters?

Or was it just to "do something" in the slim hope it would get Americans to devote less attention to the chilling prospect of nuclear-armed jihadists?

Now that these latest feeble sanctions have passed, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Foggy Bottom's smarter-than-thou diplomats are busy patting themselves on the back, what is left of our Iran policy? What do we do now, as Tehran thumbs its nose at us and continues inexorably toward nuclear status?

We apparently wait. Some anti-nuclear terrorism policy that is.

There are goose-bumpy reports in the press of U.S.-backed covert operations to throw technical monkey wrenches into the development of an Iranian bomb. Considering the CIA's track record, we'd be safer expecting Superman or Spider-Man to appear in the nick of time to save the day.

After all, the spy agency was dumbstruck in May 1998, when India conducted a nuclear test explosion.
"The warning bell never rang," according to Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporter Tim Weiner in his history of the CIA, "Legacy of Ashes." "The test revealed a failure of espionage, a failure to read photographs, a failure to comprehend reports, a failure to think, and a failure to see." India's adversary, Pakistan, almost instantly followed up with its own nuclear test.

So don't count on James Bond either.

Both the Obama and Bush administrations have squandered their opportunities to solve this singularly dangerous dilemma.
There were years during which we knew Tehran was headed toward nukes, and all the time we could have been explicitly supporting Iranian freedom fighters — millions of Muslims who want an end to rule by the ayatollahs.

We could have been sending student organizers, religious leaders and labor organizations resources — everything from computer communications equipment to cash — so they could rally the populace, disseminate news about government oppression and stage massive strikes. And publicly give them our moral support.

Last year, for example, President Obama had the perfect chance to support the people of Iran, as multitudes risked their lives in mass protests against the questionable re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But being just a few months into his presidency, Obama refused; it would have undermined his offer of direct talks with Ahmadinejad.

But those talks never happened.

With the proper groundwork laid over years, those demonstrations of 12 months ago could have been the catalyst to end the Islamist revolution launched by the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979. And under a new popular government, we might not even have to worry about Iran's pursuit of nuclear power, or at least worry less.

As the Weekly Standard reports, the Obama administration this week will apparently endorse a United Nations probe of Israel's conduct in the Gaza flotilla incident.

Since Israel may end up being the ones to prevent a nuclear Iran, this may be an even better definition of insanity: rewarding your worst enemy as he plans to kill you, while abusing your best friend who's in a position to save you.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/537145/201006111858/From-Here-To-Extermination.aspx

http://www.investors.com/image/Web_Issues_Iran0614jpg.jpg.cms

Posted in Foreign Policy Incompetence Iran Leadership Obama Terrorism with No Comments

More:

Obama and Congressional Democrats Are Negligent In Not Constructively Addressing the Illegal Immigration Problem

As Investors Business Daily stated the case:

“A Mexican cartel plots to blow up a dam — in Texas! Another pack of Mexican terrorists takes cash from Hugo Chavez. And what is Washington wringing its hands about? Why, racism in Arizona.”

We suspect that a more immigration reform would be addressed quite expeditiously, responsibly and respectfully if the object of Mexican cartel’s terrorism acts were instead the White House and Congress. Instead, Obama and the Democrats are using the issue to divide the nation and corruptly obtain votes from the Hispanic community.

Bordering Disaster
Investors Business Daily    Posted 06/04/2010

National Security: A Mexican cartel plots to blow up a dam — in Texas! Another pack of Mexican terrorists takes cash from Hugo Chavez. And what is Washington wringing its hands about? Why, racism in Arizona.

If still more proof is needed that the border needs to be secured, the latest threats emerging from Mexico should do the trick. Together, they signal that the country's war could advance to a more savage stage.

Last month, the Los Zetas paramilitary drug cartel tried to blow up the Falcon Dam near Zapata, Texas, on the Rio Grande River. The motive was to destroy a smuggling route controlled by the rival Gulf Cartel. Had it succeeded, 534 billion gallons of water could have been unleashed onto a region of 4 million people.

The plot was primitive, and U.S. lawmen took preemptive steps to foil it. But it showed motive, and the threat remains.
On Friday, Texas Gov. Rick Perry called it a reminder that more federal resources are needed to secure the border. Perry said he hoped he never had to tell U.S. officials "we told you so" after a major attack.

Moreover, the threat is no longer just over smuggling routes. Last Tuesday, the Washington Examiner quoted Mexican and U.S. intelligence sources as saying Mexico's Ejercito Popular Revolucionario (EPR), a Marxist terror organization aligned with drug cartels, is secretly receiving funds from Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez.

The group seeks to overthrow the Mexican government while engaging in drug trafficking, much as the FARC guerrillas do in Colombia. What's disturbing here is not just EPR's growing ties to the drug trade — which in time could lead to an alliance with the Zetas. It's the threat to Mexico's democracy, as well as the group's expertise in destroying infrastructure like gas lines, which EPR did in 2007.

FARC itself has also begun operating in Mexico, cutting out drug trafficking middlemen to forge closer ties with Mexico's cartels. StrategyPage, an intelligence forecaster, warned that FARC could begin launching attacks against the U.S. from Mexico in an effort to stop the U.S. from helping Colombia in its war on drugs back home.

These blood-chilling scenarios aren't fantasies. They are signs of an emerging threat that gets little attention from U.S. lawmakers. Instead of focusing on making the border secure, they play partisan political games, pandering to potential voting blocs by dangling amnesty in front of illegal immigrants, grandstanding against Arizona's effort to enforce federal law and coming up with one excuse after another for not erecting a border fence.

As illegal armed groups plot to blow up infrastructure even in this country, Democrats in Congress are more concerned about an illegal immigrant getting his feelings hurt if a police officer in Arizona asks him to show some ID.

Such distractions create opportunities for Mexico's already-odious drug traffickers to be even more ambitious.

The developments from Mexico parallel what happened in Colombia in the 1980s and 1990s, before that country got a grip on how to defeat drug lords.

As drug lords such as Medellin cartel kingpin Pablo Escobar became rich and powerful, their depredations became increasingly callous and casual. Trying to murder a politician, Escobar blew an Avianca 727 out of the sky in 1989, killing 110 people.

To destroy court records that could have meant extradition to the U.S., he teamed up with the Marxist terrorist group M-19 to blow up Colombia's supreme court building, killing 11 justices in 1985 to make sure the papers burned.

He also played politics, aligning with left-wing lawyers and human rights activists, claiming fealty to the poor and victimhood for himself on the human rights front. After Escobar's demise in 1993, political terrorist groups such as FARC took his place.

Now we have Mexican cartels and terrorists emerging in the same pattern. The plot on the border dam and Chavez's funding of Marxist narcoterrorists are an emerging menace that demands immediate attention. Mexican groups like EPR and the drug cartels find only advantage in Congress' indifference to security and laugh at its political priorities.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/536460/201006041853/Bordering-Disaster.aspx

Posted in Congress Democrat Illegal Immigration Mexico Obama Terrorism Texas with No Comments

More:

Obama’s Actions, Comments and General Naive Ineptitude Is Placing America and the Free World At Imminent Risk

The following editorial describes the deleterious effects that Obama’s aggressive remarks and rebukes toward Israel have had on that country. These, by themselves, are supremely important. However, if you look at the big picture, the damage that Obama has engendered by his lack of leadership and executive experience, his naiveté and disingenuous ideologies, and ill-advised commentaries, apologies and rebukes is incalculable.

In America, he has unleashed divisiveness and racism (ie. - incendiary comments on Arizona’s illegal immigration legislation with countless cities and organizations now attacking or boycotting Arizona- also pitting one state against another; his countenancing of Helen Thomas’ anti-Israel and anti-Semitic rants setting a poor example; dropping prosecution of the New Black Panther Party in the Philadelphia voter intimidation case; maintaining strong associations with black racists such as Cornel West, Henry Jones, Louis Farrakhan, Jay-Z, etc.)

Internationally, by denigrating America and apologizing for it, insulting and /or decreasing support and protection for our long-time allies (Great Britain, Israel, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Honduras, etc.), remaining silent in the defense of freedom and democracy (ignoring the Iranian people uprising against the theocratic repressive Islamic regime), talking loudly but carrying a very tiny stick (none to useless threats to Iran; loser in nuclear talks to Russia/Putin) and denying Islamic terrorist we are unquestionably witnessing the expected consequences.

Our enemies are emboldened and that spells death and disaster. There has been an explosion of terrorism attempts (fortunately they have thus far failed) in this country since he took office. Iran is progressing unimpeded in its quest for nuclear weapons which it will use – and which will precipitate a conflagration of unparalleled proportions. Turkey and other countries see a green light to be aggressive to Israel. Venezuela is saber rattling even more and upsetting the stability in South America.

And the list goes on.

Obama is not fit to be President. He must be removed from office to protect our country and the world!

Open Season On The Jewish State
Investors Business Daily   06/08/2010

In its latest slight, the White House temporarily withdrew an invitation to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu following Israel's killing of nine.

Israel: Of all the ironies of the Obama presidency, the strangest is now unfolding: The election to purge American racism somehow lowered the bar for anti-Semitism.

The 89-year-old Helen Thomas had been roosting in the front row of the White House press briefing room for decades. Yet her ugly feelings that Jews should get the hell out of Palestine and return "home" to Poland or Germany or America — or wherever it is the Jews belong — took this long to bubble up out of the cauldron of her gut in proximity to a camera.
The now ex-doyenne of the White House Press Corps was long known as no friend of the Jewish state, but somehow the intentional chill that the Obama administration has engineered in U.S.-Israeli relations has reduced the caution regarding attacking the state of Israel, and undoubtedly helped set her off.

It's almost like people sensing that the brawny big brother, America, has grown tired of going to the trouble of escorting his persecuted little brother, Israel, through the neighborhood. And all that long-suppressed resentment is beginning to burst out now that the protector is not on hand.

"Israel is finally getting its comeuppance" seems to be the perception of many of the critics of the Middle East's only democracy, save for U.S.-liberated Iraq.

In wondering how someone in public life, who was in her 20s when the Nazis were slaughtering millions of Jews in Germany and Poland, could act like the caricature of a bigot from an earlier era, it's impossible not to consider the disintegration over the past 16 months of our relationship with our staunchest Mideast ally.

The latest slight was the temporary withdrawal of an invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to come to the White House after Israeli forces killed nine aboard a Turkish-backed flotilla trying to break an Israeli blockade of Gaza last week.

It turns out, according to reports, that the administration's rejection of Israeli intelligence reports and consequent refusal to provide advanced weapons led to Netanyahu refusing to authorize the use of tear gas and other anti-riot measures. After Israeli commandos were soon outmatched by Turkish personnel, live fire was ordered by the Israeli naval commander.

The White House demand that Israel "exercise extreme caution and restraint," as a diplomat told WorldTribune.com, apparently ended up costing lives. Would this "Freedom Flotilla" have even attempted to break an Israeli blockade if Israel still had our strong backing? And would Iran be threatening to use its Revolutionary Guards to help smash the blockade with a naval escort?

Would the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency be placing Israel's nuclear weapons power status on its governing board's agenda this month for the first time in nearly two decades if the American-Israeli relationship wasn't deteriorating?

Would the likes of bush-league diplomatic players such as Turkey and Brazil be coming out of the woodwork with a deal to threaten even the tepid sanctions against an Islamofascist regime in Iran that will soon be able to launch a nuclear warhead against Israel?

A good case could be made that little or none of this would be happening if the U.S. had not let it be known, in various ways, that it wasn't going to be supporting Israel the way it used to.

With photos circulating of the president hugging Helen Thomas in the press room, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs scrambled to condemn her remarks as "offensive and reprehensible." And then the president followed with a personal condemnation.

But distancing itself from Thomas' bigotry doesn't allow the president to escape blame. Like former President Jimmy Carter, who used the flotilla incident to accuse Israel of "besieging Gaza" and claim that because of Israel, "the people of Gaza remain isolated and deprived of their basic human rights," this administration believes Israel should be blamed for defending itself from terrorism.

In fact, the Jewish state, surrounded by bloodthirsty enemies, should be lauded for its restraint over the decades, not subject to further persecution.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/536739/201006081901/Open-Season-On-The-Jewish-State.aspx

Posted in Anti-American Arizona Foreign Policy Freedom Ideology Illegal Immigration Impeach Incompetence Israel Nuclear weapons Obama Racism Security Terrorism with No Comments

More:

Arizona’s Illegal Immigration Law: Keep Its Citizens Safe

Posted in Arizona Illegal Immigration Political Cartoon Terrorism with No Comments

More:

More Political Correctness Run Amok

And in another example of PC (political correctness) run amok (see Arizona Should Be Praised Rather Than Reviled For Seeking To Protect Its Citizens Since The Federal Government Hasn't):

PC In The DOD
Investors Business Daily       04/26/2010

Political Correctness: The Army disinvited the Rev. Franklin Graham from praying at the Pentagon because he might offend Muslim soldiers. But isn't that the same attitude that led to the Fort Hood massacre?

The Army didn't want to offend a Muslim soldier — Maj. Nidal Hasan — who openly threatened "infidels" in Islamic diatribes. Brass ignored his jihadist rants and treated him with kid gloves. Hasan later opened fire on soldiers.

An internal Pentagon probe mentioned none of this, so no one should be surprised that the painful lesson of Fort Hood has not been learned — that catering to militant Muslims does not win their hearts and minds. In fact, it can embolden them.

In the latest chapter of military PC, the Pentagon canceled the appearance of Graham, son of evangelist Billy Graham, at an upcoming National Day of Prayer event because of Muslim complaints over his past "inappropriate" remarks about Islam.

After the 9/11 attacks, Graham described Islam as "a very evil and wicked religion." He explained that he thought it was his "responsibility to speak out against the terrible deeds that are committed as a result of Islamic teaching."

The Council on American-Islamic Relations called on its supporters to pressure the Pentagon to withdraw its May 6 prayer invitation to Graham. CAIR hailed the Pentagon's cave-in as a "victory."

No matter the circumstances, bowing to such a radical group — one with proven terror ties — is a new low in political correctness, even for the Army.

Another group, the liberal Military Religious Freedom Foundation, joined CAIR in complaining about the "Islamophobic" Graham. It argued that the Pentagon showed religious favoritism toward Christianity in inviting him.

Really? The Pentagon holds annual Iftar dinners for Muslims and is building mosques for them. It's also actively recruiting Muslim soldiers, even after the Fort Hood betrayal, and offering them leave for Islamic holidays.

Yet letting an evangelical preacher pray is too "Christian-themed"? Please. If the Pentagon favors any faith these days, it's Islam.

Our military leadership has been impaired by a PC culture that blinds it to even internal Islamic threats. Now comes this affront to one of the nation's leading evangelicals, who has boldly warned about such threats.

As it happens, President Obama met over the weekend with the 91-year-old Billy Graham at his North Carolina home as part of a pre-scheduled meeting. Out of respect for the elder Graham, the commander in chief ought to overrule the Pentagon and re-invite his son to speak on the National Day of Prayer.

But given this president's obsession with apologizing to the Muslim world, we won't hold our breath.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=531381

Posted in Ideology Islam PC - political correctness with No Comments

More:

A Definitive Statement On Obama’s Ineptness, Lack of Leadership and Misplaced Priorities

Posted in Incompetence Iran Military Nuclear weapons Obama Political Cartoon Security Terrorism with No Comments

More:

The World May Pay A Very High Price For Obama’s Incompetence and Weakness

Iran is an implacable enemy that will relentlessly pursue the development of nuclear weapons and will not respond to any actions short of military intervention.

Israel takes Iran’s threats to annihilate and incinerate it absolutely seriously and in all likelihood will preemptively attack it if it appears that no other options are available.

Meanwhile, Obama threatens and treats our staunch ally Israel and its Prime Minister despicably over plans to build apartment buildings in Jerusalem yet voices appeasing words for our enemy and terrorist sponsoring nation Iran which is overtly developing nuclear weapons for intended use.

Neither country nor leaders of the rest of the world take Obama seriously except as seriously incompetent, misguided, inexperienced, weak and confused.

And that is a serious problem the whole world has to deal with!

So Now We Know: No Plan B For Iran
Investors Business Daily     04/19/2010

Iran: A leaked memo from the defense secretary reveals the administration has no alternatives to stop Iran's nuclear push if "soft power" fails. This should be a wake-up call, but we continue snoozing toward Armageddon.

President Obama campaigned on the notion that not talking to tyrants was not an option or a workable policy. He said he'd be willing to talk with anybody anywhere to bring peace and relieve tensions. Unlike President Theodore Roosevelt, however, he has been talking softly but forgetting about the big stick.

A memo written by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and unearthed by the New York Times confirms our suspicions that, while the administration occasionally raised its voice on Iran, there in fact existed no contingency plans to use the proverbial big stick if what is called "soft power" didn't dissuade Tehran from building a nuke.

Gates' analysis of our Iranian posture was written in January to President Obama's national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones.

According to the Times report, the memo "appears to reflect concern in the upper echelons of the Pentagon and the military that the White House did not have a well-prepared series of alternatives in place in case all the diplomatic steps finally failed."

The memo is said to have sparked the development of such contingency plans that are still in the early stages. Meanwhile, Iran continues to enrich uranium toward the 20% purity level and is adding advanced centrifuges while working on warhead designs and the missiles to deliver them.

For our part, we have abandoned contingency plans to deploy ground-based missile interceptors in Poland and tracking radars in the Czech Republic in favor of less-satisfactory substitutes. We are more concerned, it seems, about 1,600 apartments to be built in three years' time in a Jewish suburb in East Jerusalem.

We talk to thugs while we humiliate an ally, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, at the White House.

Obama has said to the thugs of the world, particularly to Iran, that "we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist." Judging by his relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons in response to our futile entreaties, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is responding with a hand gesture of another kind.

"It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them," Obama said last week.

Whether we like it or not?!

This does not appear to be a president capable of giving the order to strike even if we had plans to strike. We're too busy disarming and apologizing for our power and our past willingness to use it in the defense of ourselves and our allies.

Israel makes no such apologies. In 1981, it destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak. And in 2007, it bombed into obliteration a North Korean-supplied secret nuclear reactor in Syria. It has well-prepared plans to strike Iran.

The clock, and the Iranian nuke, is ticking. James Lindsay and Ray Takeyh, writing in this month's Foreign Affairs, declare: "If Iran's nuclear program continues to progress at its current rate, Tehran could have the nuclear material needed to build a bomb before U.S. President Barack Obama's current term in office expires."

It is getting perilously close to the time when either we or Israel will, as fighter pilots like to say, have to kick the tires and light the fires. We'd better plan for it.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=530762

Posted in Foreign Policy Incompetence Iran Israel Nuclear weapons Security Terrorism with No Comments

More:

Liz Cheney Add Rightfully Attacks Eric Holder Regarding DOJ Employees Who Had Previously Done Work For Terrorists

Liz Cheney’s group, Keep America Safe, has put out a new ad attacking Atty. General Eric Holder regarding his knowledge and statement that at least nine Obama Dept. of Justice officials performed legal work for terrorists. We covered this on Feb. 22nd in a post entitled “An Utter Outrage: At Least Nine Obama Dept. of Justice Officials Performed Legal Work For Terrorists”

Liz Cheney ad about Atty. General Eric Holder and the Al Qaeda 7

Posted in Attorney General Eric Holder Elizabeth Cheney Lawyers Obama Terrorism Videos with No Comments

More:

Obama Can Learn A Few Lessons From Indonesia Regarding Fighting Terrorism

Indonesia was once a hot bed for Islamic terrorism; in fact, one of the top locales in the world. But no more. What happened? The people elected a President with a military background who promised to resolutely and relentlessly fight the terrorism problem.

And he did, and the country’s citizens didn’t have to sacrifice their rights. Now they are much freer from terrorist attacks.

Obama has a lot to learn. Maybe he should start by bowing to the Indonesian leader in deference to his persistence, success and accomplishing what he promised to do in order to protect and “free” the country’s citizens.

Indonesia Cuts Terror
Investors Business Daily    02/18/2010

Terrorism: Indonesia has fallen off the map of the most-terror-prone places on Earth, corporate intelligence forecasters say. How did that happen in a nation once plagued by Bali's bombers? By annihilating the enemy.

This week, Britain's Maplecroft group, an assessor of corporate risk, dropped Indonesia from its top 10 nations most likely to experience a mass-casualty terrorist attack. The group bases its Terrorism Risk Index entries on frequency and intensity of terror attacks and a nation's history.

Likewise, the Swedish National Defense College has concluded that there's a diminishing threat in Indonesia.

If that sounds academic, consider that Indonesian and U.S. officials said no significant security risks threaten President Obama ahead of his weeklong trip to Indonesia next month.

Now, to be sure, terrorism isn't completely gone from Indonesia. But there's been a lot of silence recently from that island country on the terror front. For a nation that experienced some fearsome terror attacks in past years, each quiet month is a sign of victory.

The reason isn't hard to recognize:Last September, Indonesian commandos blew away a Malaysian terrorist named Noordin Mohammed Top, who had a hand in every major Indonesian terror attack since the first Bali bombing of 2002.

It says something that getting rid of a single terrorist kingpin could have such an impact on Indonesia's outlook. But it did.

That offers a reminder of what it takes to win a war on terror. Miranda warnings, civilian trials and shaking down blue-haired ladies at airports don't do it. Hunting and killing terrorists do.

That's important because some analysts, such as Jakarta-based senior adviser Sidney Jones of Crisis Group International, have claimed Indonesia's progress is a result of turning the war on terror into a police action. She explained in a January interview with Voice of America that civilian trials helped win public trust.

She's not completely wrong, but to look at what Indonesia did suggests more of a militarization of its police forces than trust in the routine civilian mechanisms of police action. Indonesia treated terrorism with the urgency of warfare, even if its police took the lead.

That was possible only because of strong leadership and big public backing. Both reflect Indonesia's democracy and growing political freedom, which studies show repel terror. And no, the country didn't turn into a military state by treating terror as war.

Indonesians set the actions into motion by electing a military man, Bambang Susilo Yudhoyono, as their president in 2004 and by reelecting him in 2009. The Indonesian general ran on a tough anti-terrorist platform and kept his word on that.

The tone set, Indonesians threw out Islamic extremist parties in National Assembly elections last May, in what was seen as a surprise blow to the terrorists' most sympathetic fellow travelers.

After that, the country got help from abroad. The U.S. provided military training to Indonesian cops, who became commandos capable of zeroing in on Top and his violent network.

From there, the commandos employed counterinsurgency tactics, winning the hearts and minds of ordinary Indonesians to draw in a stream of tips from villagers informing on terrorists wherever they went. The tips came so fast and thick, Top and his small band of terrorists ran out of places to hide.

The takedown raid on Top was military in character, too. Quietly, the police evacuated 20 families in the neighborhood where Top hid to ensure no civilian casualties. They circled Top's hideout, giving him a chance to emerge with his hands up. When he didn't, they flattened the house in a barrage of firepower.

The operation made enough difference in the terror landscape in Indonesia to define it as a victory, not just a routine police action.

That says a lot about the importance of calling a war a war and treating it as one.

The result is Indonesians can savor peace and give the rest of the world an example of how a terror war is won.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=521570

Posted in Ideology Incompetence Obama Terrorism with No Comments

More:

Muslim Groups Demand Exemption From Airport Scanners: Claim Violation of Religious Tenet

How convenient. The same group that perpetrates virtually all of the terrorism worldwide and frequently uses hidden or disassembled bomb materials, ostensibly claims that airport body scanners violate their “religion’s” tenet of modesty and they want an exemption. Meanwhile, they will hide these explosives in body cavities, orifices and implanted devices in order to violate the right to life of many others.

Even though the scanners won’t necessarily be able to detect every one of these devices or discern which ones are laden with explosives, pat downs by security guards will likely miss virtually all of these devices. If the TSA acquiesces to their demand, terrorists will exploit this and security will be further lowered jeopardizing the lives of thousands.

There should be no preferential treatment for Muslims. Period.

Muslim-American body issues fatwa against airport body scanners
IANS February 12, 2010

WASHINGTON: Some Muslim-American groups are supporting a fatwa issued by a body of Islamic scholars forbidding Muslims from going through full body scanners at airports, a media report said.

The Fiqh Council of North America issued the religious ruling this week that says going through the airport scanners would violate Islamic rules on modesty, Free Press reported.

"It is a violation of clear Islamic teachings that men or women be seen naked by other men and women," reads the fatwa issued Tuesday. "Islam highly emphasises haya (modesty) and considers it part of faith. The Quran has commanded the believers, both men and women, to cover their private parts."

After the Christmas Day bombing attempt in Detroit by a Muslim suspect from Nigeria, some US airports are now in the process of buying and using the body scanners to find explosives and other dangerous materials carried by terrorists.

But Muslim groups say the scanners, which show in graphic detail the outlines of a person's body, go against their religion. One option offered to passengers who don't want to use the scanners would be a pat down by a security guard. The Muslim groups are urging members to undergo those instead.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) says it endorses the fatwa. "We support the Fiqh Council's statement on full-body scanners and believe that the religious and privacy rights of passengers can be respected while maintaining safety and security," Nihad Awad, national executive director of CAIR was quoted as saying.

Currently, there are 40 full-body scanners at 19 airports in the US, including two in Detroit, said spokesman Jim Fotenos of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). There are plans for 450 more body scanners in US airports, he said.

In a statement, the TSA said it is committed to keeping passengers safe and also protecting their privacy.

"TSA's mission is to keep the travelling public safe. Advanced imaging technologies are an important tool in a multi-layered security system to detect evolving threats such as improvised explosive devices.

"TSA's use of these technologies includes strong protections in place to safeguard passenger privacy. Screening images are automatically deleted, and the officer viewing the image will never see the passenger."

The TSA stressed that the body scanners are "optional to all passengers". Those who turn them down, "will receive equivalent screening that may include a physical pat-down, hand-wanding, and other technologies".

"Physical pat-downs are performed by transportation security Officers of the same sex as the passenger in a private screening area, if the passenger requests."

Body scanners "do not produce photos", the agency said. Rather, the images "look like chalk outlines".

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-5564134,prtpage-1.cms

Posted in Islam Religion Security Terrorism with 2 Comments

More:

Obama Has His Priorities and Policies Reversed When It Comes To Terrorists and Our Intelligence Agencies

Obama recently declared in a meeting with the GOP that “he is not an ideologue. Really!”

Really?

With regard to terrorism, Obama’s ideology and that of his radical left adhere to a policy that places our intelligence agencies on the defensive and their agents at legal risk while jeopardizing the security of our country. Meanwhile, they steadfastly remind us of the “inherent” rights of terrorists including Mirandizing them and even providing them with taxpayer funded attorneys.

Unbelievably, the Obama Administration has made it a priority to question a few of our CIA agents about some issues arising a few years ago yet could not find the time to address the far more important matter of implementing  the High Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG) which would allow us to interrogate terrorists and extract vital information.

Obama administration takes several wrong paths in dealing with terrorism
By Michael V. Hayden January 31, 2010

In the war on terrorism, this country faces an enemy whose theory of warfare ends the hard-won distinction in modern thought between combatant and noncombatant. In doing that for which we have created government -- ensuring life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- how can we be adequately aggressive to ensure the first value, without unduly threatening the other two? This is hard. And people don't have to be lazy or stupid to get it wrong.

We got it wrong in Detroit on Christmas Day. We allowed an enemy combatant the protections of our Constitution before we had adequately interrogated him. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is not "an isolated extremist." He is the tip of the spear of a complex al-Qaeda plot to kill Americans in our homeland.

In the 50 minutes the FBI had to question him, agents reportedly got actionable intelligence. Good. But were there any experts on al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in the room (other than Abdulmutallab)? Was there anyone intimately familiar with any National Security Agency raw traffic to, from or about the captured terrorist? Did they have a list or photos of suspected recruits?

When questioning its detainees, the CIA routinely turns the information provided over to its experts for verification and recommendations for follow-up. The responses of these experts -- "Press him more on this, he knows the details" or "First time we've heard that" -- helps set up more detailed questioning.

None of that happened in Detroit. In fact, we ensured that it wouldn't. After the first session, the FBI Mirandized Abdulmutallab and -- to preserve a potential prosecution -- sent in a "clean team" of agents who could have no knowledge of what Abdulmutallab had provided before he was given his constitutional warnings. As has been widely reported, Abdulmutallab then exercised his right to remain silent.

In retrospect, the inadvisability of this approach seems self-evident. Perhaps it didn't appear that way on Dec. 25 because we have, over the past year, become acclimated to certain patterns of thought.

Two days after his inauguration, President Obama issued an executive order that limited all interrogations by the U.S. government to the techniques authorized in the Army Field Manual. The CIA had not seen the final draft of the order, let alone been allowed to comment, before it was issued. I thought that odd since the order was less a legal document -- there was no claim that the manual exhausted the universe of lawful techniques -- than a policy one: These particular lawful techniques would be all that the country would need, at least for now.

A similar drama unfolded in April over the release of Justice Department memos that had authorized the CIA interrogation program. CIA Director Leon Panetta and several of his predecessors opposed public release of the memos in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit on the only legitimate grounds for such a stand: that the documents were legitimately still classified and their release would gravely harm national security. On this policy -- not legal -- question, the president sided with his attorney general rather than his CIA chief.

In August, seemingly again in contradiction to the president's policy of not looking backward and over the objections of the CIA, Justice pushed to release the CIA inspector general's report on the interrogation program. Then Justice decided to reopen investigations of CIA officers that had been concluded by career prosecutors years ago, even though Panetta and seven of his predecessors said that doing so would be unfair, unwarranted and harmful to the agency's current mission.

In November, Justice announced that it intended to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and several others in civilian courts for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The White House made clear that this was a Justice Department decision, which is odd because the decision was not legally compelled (other detainees are to be tried by military commissions) and the reasons given for making it (military trials could serve as a recruitment tool for al-Qaeda, harm relations with allies, etc.) were not legal but political.

Even tough government organizations, such as those in the intelligence community, figure out pretty quickly what their political masters think is not acceptable behavior. The executive order that confined interrogations to the Army Field Manual also launched a task force to investigate whether those techniques were sufficient for national needs. Few observers believed that the group would recommend changes, and to date, no techniques have been added to the manual.

Intelligence officers need to know that someone has their back. After the Justice memos were released in April, CIA officers began to ask whether the people doing things that were currently authorized would be dragged through this kind of public knothole in five years. No one could guarantee that they would not.

Some may celebrate that the current Justice Department's perspective on the war on terrorism has become markedly more dominant in the past year. We should probably understand the implications of that before we break out the champagne. That apparently no one recommended on Christmas Day that Abdulmutallab be handled, at least for a time, as an enemy combatant should be concerning. That our director of national intelligence, Denny Blair, bravely said as much during congressional testimony this month is cause for hope.

Actually, Blair suggested that the High Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG), announced by the administration in August, should have been called in. A government spokesman later pointed out that the group does not yet exist.

There's a final oddity. In August, the government unveiled the HIG for questioning al-Qaeda and announced that the FBI would begin questioning CIA officers about the alleged abuses in the 2004 inspector general's report. They are apparently still getting organized for the al-Qaeda interrogations. But the interrogations of CIA personnel are well underway.

(The writer was director of the CIA from 2006 to 2009.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012903954.html

Posted in Ideology Incompetence Obama Security Terrorism with No Comments

More:

Obama’s Promises Are Irrelevant As Action Speaks Louder Than Words

Obama’s actions and policies on terrorism belie his meaningless rhetoric and that was reinforced again in his State of the Union address. Actions speak louder than words so until we see some concrete changes, his words should be considered irrelevant.

Liz Cheney Ad Knocks Obama on Terror

Posted in Elizabeth Cheney Ideology Obama Security Terrorism Videos with No Comments

More:

 Print This Post