Obama: I shaved my legs for this? Part II
In his most powerful statement to date, Obama warned Iran that it must demonstrate how peaceful it is after discovery of a covert nuke facility at Qom, halt its "disturbing pattern . . . of evasion" and "cooperate fully" with the IAEA or else . . . or else . . . we'll hit you with serious, meaningful dialogue!
And if the nuclear mullahs STILL refuse to live up to their responsibility to be nice men, strong and powerful president Obama will force them to face the consequences -- another round of harsh talks! Without preconditions. Backed by a sternly-worded, gravely-concerned rebuke. Don't make me resort to the ultimate weapon -- staring at you with sullen discontent! Mixed with self-flagellation. That'll do it.
In response to this powerful ultimatum, the mullahs broke out singing, 'Mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack Hussein Obama!'
To Obama's credit, he has not taken off the table the one action that would force Iran to stop laughing and take us seriously -- playing the "We are the world" song really, really loud.
Despite bailing on Israel, bailing on the Poles and Czechs and surrendering to the Russians and the Taliban, people for some reason think Obama is weak. After his UN speech, Obama was stunned and shocked that Tehran's homicidal Islamic maniacs bent on bringing on nuclear Armageddon would be 'evasive'. And that they're still being mean to him.
After all, Hugo Chavez says that now with Obama in the White House, he smells hope, not sulfur at the UN podium.
Always concerned with America's best interests, Muammar Gaddafi says he wished Obama could be president for life. Gaddafi spoke at the UN for nearly 100 minutes during his allotted 15 minutes. He praised the Taliban as awesome, called the Iraq war "evil" and demanded trillions in reparations for colonialism, ticking off a list of other points from the Democrat Party platform.
Remarking on Obama's UN speech, world-renown climate expert, Fidel Castro, praised Obama for accusing America of being slow to act on unproven climate theories. Castro said no other American president would be "brave" enough to say such derogatory things about his own country -- apparently forgetting about Jimmy Carter.
Turning up the heat on Iran regarding the Qom nuke site, administration honchos told ABC News' Jake Tapper that military action would be counterproductive. And really scary because "One: The goal of the U.S. government is not to close this one facility at Qom, but rather to convince the Iranian government" that will stop at nothing to acquire nukes to stop "their nuclear ambitions writ large." And end world hunger and disease. And let me eat as much as I want without getting writ large. "Second: Bombing the facility might only make the Iranians more determined, whereas if Western intelligence agencies catch them violating their agreements every time they cheat -- and this is the third time since 2002 -- the Iranians may conclude, ultimately, that any aspirations for nuclear weapons are futile." We won't bomb you because you'll get more determined to acquire the nukes that would prevent us from bombing you, so stop it now! Or we'll send Hans Blix!
If you're looking for the briefest summation of Obama's Iran policy, it's: Surrender your nukes in 3 or 4 months, mullahs! If not, don't worry. We'll give you another 3 or 4 months to comply. Everybody and his cousin knew for years about Iran's second top-secret nuke plant at Qom which is being called a "discovery". Even our intelligence agencies knew. Yet, in November of 2007, right around the time pressure on Iran was building and U.S. military action looked like a go, they crank out an NIE that claimed "with high confidence," based on zero evidence, that Iran's nuclear mullahs had been out of the nuclear weapons business since the fall of 2003. Pressure was off, mullahs off the hook. Then, six minutes after Obama's elected, the intel community suddenly "discovers" the Qom nuclear plant is dangerous, coincidentally while in cover-your-arse mode. The IC chaps figured president-elect Pusillanimous would respond to this intel of Iranian provocation by doing absolutely nothing about it and for once they got it right.
If -- as the Kool-Aid impaired media seem to think -- Obama's disclosing the Qom plant was a diplomatic trap he was laying, it's a trap he sprung on himself. After a grip 'n' greet with Israel's Netanyahu in New York last week, president Transparency decides to come clean on Qom -- a coincidence! Even whackjob Ahmadinejad knew the Israelis knew, so the IAEA gets a private letter last Monday in which Iran 'reveals' construction of this harmless little heavily protected "new pilot fuel enrichment plant" inside a mountain. Obama is shocked that Russia and China seem unmoved by his Qom 'revelation' after he declared the era of American leadership over on his watch. Yet, even as Obama heralds a new world lacking American leadership, the days of Iran's nuke program are still numbered. Happy hunting, Israel.
Anyway, that's...
My Two Cents...
"JohnHuang2"
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Monday, September 21, 2009
DEATH SPIRAL OF THE ISLAMIC IRAN REGIME - BUT OF THE MULLAHS,TOO?
(Alan note: so far it is still a "Clash of the Mullahs" but this has provided the populace an opportunity to sense a weakness and to emerge - not yet with a vengeance but in numbers. Repression has been tempered by the clerics fighting and fearing each other rather than fearing the people. Yet!
The reaction of protesters rushing the thugs trying to impose the Khamenei regime's authority is the first signal of the of the beginning of the end and the precursor of the crowds hitting the streets with a vengeance!
Neither Supreme Leader Khamenei or his son Mojtaba (the defactor ruler) will survive, nor Ahmadi-Nejad, nor will his main ally the Commander of the Revolutionary Guard, the obese Major-General called the Piggy (khuki) by Iranians on both sides of the divide.
But will the Mullahs/Ayatollahs be replaced?
Moussavi, Hatami, Rafsanjani, Karoubi are all Islamist and have achieved some power from the street demonstrations but will they commit political suicide? And perhaps risk being hanged for their prior support and participation in the slaughter of tens of thousands of opponents at all levels during the preceding decades? Which has stained their hands with rivers of blood?
=================================================
By Michael Ledeen
Marx would have delighted in the events of the 18th, all over Iran. Groucho, that is, for on the 18th the supreme leader and all his co-conspirators were transformed from figures of awe to objects of ridicule. As Machiavelli likes to remind us, the most dangerous thing for any leader is to earn the contempt of his followers, and the Iranian people made it luminously clear that they would no longer be intimidated. The regime had launched a vicious repression following the challenges to the “election results” of June 12th. For a hundred days they had killed, raped, tortured and threatened. In the runup to the 18th, the stern face of the leader of the Revolutionary Guards had appeared on television and his confident voice had been heard on the radio, warning that anyone who dared wear green, or carry protest signs, or chant criticism of the Islamic Republic, would be treated “very harshly.” His words were like so much spittle in a storm; among the many chants in the streets that day, you could hear “rape, murder and torture will not silence us.”
When a tyrannical regime dies, you can see the symptoms in the little things. Late Friday afternoon, after millions (yes, millions–this according to Le Monde, France 2, and L’Express, with the BBC saying that the demonstrations were bigger than those at the time of the Revolution) of Greens mobbed the streets and squares of more than thirty towns and cities to call for the end of the regime, there was a soccer game in Azadi Stadium in Tehran. It holds about a hundred thousand fans, and it was full of men wearing green and carrying green balloons. When state-run tv saw what was happening, the color was drained from the broadcast, and viewers saw the game in black and white. And when the fans began to chant “Death to the Dictator,” “Death to Russia,” and “Death to Putin, Chavez and Nasrallah, enemies of Iran,” the sound was shut off. So the game turned into a silent movie.
But the censors forgot about the radio, and the microphones stayed open, so that millions of listeners could hear the sounds of the revolution. And in Azadi Stadium, as in most parts of the country, the security officers either walked away or joined the party.
You will not have heard such stories, nor read about them in our “media,” which have raised denial of the day’s major events to an art form of late. Rather like the Iranian regime, which used to have an enormous influence on the way citizens thought, the major broadcasters and dead-tree scribblers have also become objects of ridicule. On Sunday morning, Supreme Leader Khamenei proclaimed that the demonstrations had been an enormous success for the regime, but anyone looking at the pictures could see that he was short on sleep. So would you if you had heard the thunderous shouts of “Death to the Dictator” during the night. Khamenei’s claim was greeted with ridicule.
Sunday also brought open contempt from some of the most revered leaders of the Shi’ite world. Khamene’i had declared Sunday the end of Ramadan, a day of feasts and prayers, one of the most joyous of the Muslim year. Such a proclamation is supposed to be canonical, for Khamene’i speaks in the name of all Muslims. But fifteen Grand Ayatollahs like Sistani (from Najaf, Iraq), Montazeri, Taheri and Sanei rejected Khamenei’s reading of the moon, and said that the feast could not begin until Monday. No one could get away with such an open challenge to the supreme leader’s theological authority unless there were a considerable consensus that his rule was illegitimate. And it’s even worse for him: across the country, many mosques were closed on Sunday. The faithful were told to go home and fast, and come back the next day for prayer.
No wonder Khamenei looks tired. And in keeping with the avalanche of errors, today the Revolutionary Guards’ favorite newspaper kept the whole thing going, insisting that the supreme leader was right after all. Stupid and irrelevant, a classic example of people in a hole who keep digging deeper.
These little stories illustrate a great event, indeed a world-changing event: the death of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, and the rest of the evil empire in Tehran, are all dead men walking. We don’t know the schedule for the funeral yet, but Iranians know it’s on the agenda. One will get you ten at my betting window that, aside from a very thin veneer of top officials (for whom there is no hope, for they will fulfill the demand of the nightly rooftop chants), anyone who is anyone in Iran today is trying to make a deal with Mousavi and Karroubi. They are all whispering that their hearts are green, and always were green.
Khamenei & Co. certainly know this, as they know they are being betrayed by some very high-ranking people. And the exodus is under way; by the end of the week we will see some important representatives of the Islamic Republic resign their posts, for they do not wish to be associated with it any longer.
Look at what didn’t happen in the streets last Friday. Not a shot was fired at the millions of demonstrators in Tehran. There are YouTubes of police fraternizing with the Greens. There are stories of Revolutionary Guardsmen helping the demonstrators, and even the Basij didn’t dare to attack or arrest, with a handful of exceptions (one of which is notable: in Tabriz, if I remember correctly, they started to round up some people, and the crowd turned on them, freed the would-be victims, and beat the Basijis to death).
And look at what else didn’t happen: nobody tried to arrest Mousavi or Karroubi. Somebody tried to stab Khatami in the street, but it was thwarted, and Karroubi has been told to show up at a Revolutionary Tribunal to respond to charges of spreading false claims of rape and murder in the prisons. But this subpoena, which previously terrified the recipient, is no longer threatening. Karroubi has proclaimed it is good news, for it will give him the opportunity to present the evidence, which is iron-clad, and can no longer be destroyed (copies of documents, audios and videos are now in the hands of Green supporters in Europe and the United States).
So we have a regime of zombies in Tehran, but they can still do a lot of damage, to Iranians and to us. Early last week Khamenei summoned Afghan terrorist chieftain Gulbadin Hekhmatiar to Tehran, and told him to step up attacks against American and other Allied forces. Other Iranian-supported terrorist groups have received similar instructions.
Under the circumstances, you’d think that your government would be talking to the Greens. But you’d be wrong. Perhaps Hillary Clinton thought she was telling the truth when she claimed, a few days after the insurrection of June 12th, that “behind the scenes” we were helping the Iranian opposition. If so, she shouldn’t have said anything about it, but I don’t think she was well informed. There are no contacts between the American Government and the leaders of the opposition. One should not expect the new government to look kindly upon a President Obama who publicly sweet-talked the Tehran butchers, and all but begged Khamenei for a few minutes of his precious time. The same applies to the Europeans, all of whom scrambled for oil and other commercial contracts, and none of whom talked to the Green leaders.
As so often, Martin Luther King Jr. summed it up perfectly: “In the end we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”
The reaction of protesters rushing the thugs trying to impose the Khamenei regime's authority is the first signal of the of the beginning of the end and the precursor of the crowds hitting the streets with a vengeance!
Neither Supreme Leader Khamenei or his son Mojtaba (the defactor ruler) will survive, nor Ahmadi-Nejad, nor will his main ally the Commander of the Revolutionary Guard, the obese Major-General called the Piggy (khuki) by Iranians on both sides of the divide.
But will the Mullahs/Ayatollahs be replaced?
Moussavi, Hatami, Rafsanjani, Karoubi are all Islamist and have achieved some power from the street demonstrations but will they commit political suicide? And perhaps risk being hanged for their prior support and participation in the slaughter of tens of thousands of opponents at all levels during the preceding decades? Which has stained their hands with rivers of blood?
=================================================
By Michael Ledeen
Marx would have delighted in the events of the 18th, all over Iran. Groucho, that is, for on the 18th the supreme leader and all his co-conspirators were transformed from figures of awe to objects of ridicule. As Machiavelli likes to remind us, the most dangerous thing for any leader is to earn the contempt of his followers, and the Iranian people made it luminously clear that they would no longer be intimidated. The regime had launched a vicious repression following the challenges to the “election results” of June 12th. For a hundred days they had killed, raped, tortured and threatened. In the runup to the 18th, the stern face of the leader of the Revolutionary Guards had appeared on television and his confident voice had been heard on the radio, warning that anyone who dared wear green, or carry protest signs, or chant criticism of the Islamic Republic, would be treated “very harshly.” His words were like so much spittle in a storm; among the many chants in the streets that day, you could hear “rape, murder and torture will not silence us.”
When a tyrannical regime dies, you can see the symptoms in the little things. Late Friday afternoon, after millions (yes, millions–this according to Le Monde, France 2, and L’Express, with the BBC saying that the demonstrations were bigger than those at the time of the Revolution) of Greens mobbed the streets and squares of more than thirty towns and cities to call for the end of the regime, there was a soccer game in Azadi Stadium in Tehran. It holds about a hundred thousand fans, and it was full of men wearing green and carrying green balloons. When state-run tv saw what was happening, the color was drained from the broadcast, and viewers saw the game in black and white. And when the fans began to chant “Death to the Dictator,” “Death to Russia,” and “Death to Putin, Chavez and Nasrallah, enemies of Iran,” the sound was shut off. So the game turned into a silent movie.
But the censors forgot about the radio, and the microphones stayed open, so that millions of listeners could hear the sounds of the revolution. And in Azadi Stadium, as in most parts of the country, the security officers either walked away or joined the party.
You will not have heard such stories, nor read about them in our “media,” which have raised denial of the day’s major events to an art form of late. Rather like the Iranian regime, which used to have an enormous influence on the way citizens thought, the major broadcasters and dead-tree scribblers have also become objects of ridicule. On Sunday morning, Supreme Leader Khamenei proclaimed that the demonstrations had been an enormous success for the regime, but anyone looking at the pictures could see that he was short on sleep. So would you if you had heard the thunderous shouts of “Death to the Dictator” during the night. Khamenei’s claim was greeted with ridicule.
Sunday also brought open contempt from some of the most revered leaders of the Shi’ite world. Khamene’i had declared Sunday the end of Ramadan, a day of feasts and prayers, one of the most joyous of the Muslim year. Such a proclamation is supposed to be canonical, for Khamene’i speaks in the name of all Muslims. But fifteen Grand Ayatollahs like Sistani (from Najaf, Iraq), Montazeri, Taheri and Sanei rejected Khamenei’s reading of the moon, and said that the feast could not begin until Monday. No one could get away with such an open challenge to the supreme leader’s theological authority unless there were a considerable consensus that his rule was illegitimate. And it’s even worse for him: across the country, many mosques were closed on Sunday. The faithful were told to go home and fast, and come back the next day for prayer.
No wonder Khamenei looks tired. And in keeping with the avalanche of errors, today the Revolutionary Guards’ favorite newspaper kept the whole thing going, insisting that the supreme leader was right after all. Stupid and irrelevant, a classic example of people in a hole who keep digging deeper.
These little stories illustrate a great event, indeed a world-changing event: the death of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, and the rest of the evil empire in Tehran, are all dead men walking. We don’t know the schedule for the funeral yet, but Iranians know it’s on the agenda. One will get you ten at my betting window that, aside from a very thin veneer of top officials (for whom there is no hope, for they will fulfill the demand of the nightly rooftop chants), anyone who is anyone in Iran today is trying to make a deal with Mousavi and Karroubi. They are all whispering that their hearts are green, and always were green.
Khamenei & Co. certainly know this, as they know they are being betrayed by some very high-ranking people. And the exodus is under way; by the end of the week we will see some important representatives of the Islamic Republic resign their posts, for they do not wish to be associated with it any longer.
Look at what didn’t happen in the streets last Friday. Not a shot was fired at the millions of demonstrators in Tehran. There are YouTubes of police fraternizing with the Greens. There are stories of Revolutionary Guardsmen helping the demonstrators, and even the Basij didn’t dare to attack or arrest, with a handful of exceptions (one of which is notable: in Tabriz, if I remember correctly, they started to round up some people, and the crowd turned on them, freed the would-be victims, and beat the Basijis to death).
And look at what else didn’t happen: nobody tried to arrest Mousavi or Karroubi. Somebody tried to stab Khatami in the street, but it was thwarted, and Karroubi has been told to show up at a Revolutionary Tribunal to respond to charges of spreading false claims of rape and murder in the prisons. But this subpoena, which previously terrified the recipient, is no longer threatening. Karroubi has proclaimed it is good news, for it will give him the opportunity to present the evidence, which is iron-clad, and can no longer be destroyed (copies of documents, audios and videos are now in the hands of Green supporters in Europe and the United States).
So we have a regime of zombies in Tehran, but they can still do a lot of damage, to Iranians and to us. Early last week Khamenei summoned Afghan terrorist chieftain Gulbadin Hekhmatiar to Tehran, and told him to step up attacks against American and other Allied forces. Other Iranian-supported terrorist groups have received similar instructions.
Under the circumstances, you’d think that your government would be talking to the Greens. But you’d be wrong. Perhaps Hillary Clinton thought she was telling the truth when she claimed, a few days after the insurrection of June 12th, that “behind the scenes” we were helping the Iranian opposition. If so, she shouldn’t have said anything about it, but I don’t think she was well informed. There are no contacts between the American Government and the leaders of the opposition. One should not expect the new government to look kindly upon a President Obama who publicly sweet-talked the Tehran butchers, and all but begged Khamenei for a few minutes of his precious time. The same applies to the Europeans, all of whom scrambled for oil and other commercial contracts, and none of whom talked to the Green leaders.
As so often, Martin Luther King Jr. summed it up perfectly: “In the end we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”
Sunday, September 20, 2009
OBAMA COMMUNIST TIES
It is now well established that Barack Obama was linked to the Hawaiian Communist Party network through his boyhood/teenage mentor Frank Marshall Davis.
It is also well known that after moving to Chicago, Obama linked up with the local communist networks.
Manning Marable, a leader of the Communist Party offshoot Committees of Correspondence for Democracy&Socialism claims that Obama “understands what socialism is. A lot of the people working with him are, indeed, socialists with backgrounds in the Communist Party or as independent Marxists. There are a lot of people like that in Chicago who have worked with him for years...”
This leads to two key questions.
A Were the Hawaii and Chicago networks connected?
B Did Obama’s connection to Frank Marshall Davis in any way influence his progress up the Chicago political ladder?
If the answer is yes to both, there are significant implications.
It means that that the Communist Party USA was watching Obama from an early age and was willing to help his political career.
Frank Marshall Davis was active in the Chicago Communist Party until he moved to Hawaii in late 1948.
I speculated in this post that Davis may have known left wing journalist Vernon Jarrett in post war Chicago. A connection would be significant because the Jarrett family has played a very important role in Obama’s rise to power.
Both Jarrett and Davis worked in the communist dominated South Side Community Art Center and on the communist influenced Chicago Defender newspaper, in late 1940s Chicago.
I have since found conclusive evidence that Davis and Jarrett not only knew each other, but worked together in another Communist Party dominated organisation-The Citizen’s Committee to Aid Packing House Workers.
“organized to support the united packing-House workers of America C.I.O. now on strike”
The letter above is dated April 12, 1948. Note that CIO (Congress of Industrial Organizations) was at the time a communist controlled labor federation.
To the left is a partial list of Citizen’s Committee to Aid Packing House Workers officials.
Note the names Oscar C. Brown (Treasurer) and Louise T. Patterson (Assistant Treasurer), F.M. Davis and Vernon Jarrett.
To confirm the connection, below is a close-up of the committee’s publicity committee. Note that it is chaired by Vernon Jarrett and includes Frank Marshall Davis.
That the Citizen’s Committee was communist influenced is beyond doubt.
Louise T Patterson was the wife of Illinois Communist Party vice-chairman and attorney William Patterson and a prominent Party member in her own right. Louise Patterson was still a leader of the Illinois Communist Party well into the 1970s.
Further down the page was list of the organization’s “Food and groceries committee”. Named among them was Ishmael Flory, a leader of the Illinois Communist Party from the late 1930s until his death in 2004.
Incidentally, one of the eulogists at Flory’s funeral was Timuel Black, a well known member of Committees of Correspondence for Democracy&Socialism and a long time friend and political supporter of Barack Obama.
Oscar C Brown-later a famous jazz musician under the name Oscar Brown jnr, was also at the time a Communist Party member. he joined in 1946 and was expelled around 1954.
In 1948 Vernon Jarrett left his job as journalist at the Chicago Defender to start a black oriented radio show “Negro Newsfront” with Oscar Brown.
Jarrett was clearly on the far left and almost certainly, like his colleague Frank Marshall Davis, a covert member of the Communist Party.
Jarrett worked hard promoting socialist causes including the communist controlled Progressive Party.
It is also well known that after moving to Chicago, Obama linked up with the local communist networks.
Manning Marable, a leader of the Communist Party offshoot Committees of Correspondence for Democracy&Socialism claims that Obama “understands what socialism is. A lot of the people working with him are, indeed, socialists with backgrounds in the Communist Party or as independent Marxists. There are a lot of people like that in Chicago who have worked with him for years...”
This leads to two key questions.
A Were the Hawaii and Chicago networks connected?
B Did Obama’s connection to Frank Marshall Davis in any way influence his progress up the Chicago political ladder?
If the answer is yes to both, there are significant implications.
It means that that the Communist Party USA was watching Obama from an early age and was willing to help his political career.
Frank Marshall Davis was active in the Chicago Communist Party until he moved to Hawaii in late 1948.
I speculated in this post that Davis may have known left wing journalist Vernon Jarrett in post war Chicago. A connection would be significant because the Jarrett family has played a very important role in Obama’s rise to power.
Both Jarrett and Davis worked in the communist dominated South Side Community Art Center and on the communist influenced Chicago Defender newspaper, in late 1940s Chicago.
I have since found conclusive evidence that Davis and Jarrett not only knew each other, but worked together in another Communist Party dominated organisation-The Citizen’s Committee to Aid Packing House Workers.
“organized to support the united packing-House workers of America C.I.O. now on strike”
The letter above is dated April 12, 1948. Note that CIO (Congress of Industrial Organizations) was at the time a communist controlled labor federation.
To the left is a partial list of Citizen’s Committee to Aid Packing House Workers officials.
Note the names Oscar C. Brown (Treasurer) and Louise T. Patterson (Assistant Treasurer), F.M. Davis and Vernon Jarrett.
To confirm the connection, below is a close-up of the committee’s publicity committee. Note that it is chaired by Vernon Jarrett and includes Frank Marshall Davis.
That the Citizen’s Committee was communist influenced is beyond doubt.
Louise T Patterson was the wife of Illinois Communist Party vice-chairman and attorney William Patterson and a prominent Party member in her own right. Louise Patterson was still a leader of the Illinois Communist Party well into the 1970s.
Further down the page was list of the organization’s “Food and groceries committee”. Named among them was Ishmael Flory, a leader of the Illinois Communist Party from the late 1930s until his death in 2004.
Incidentally, one of the eulogists at Flory’s funeral was Timuel Black, a well known member of Committees of Correspondence for Democracy&Socialism and a long time friend and political supporter of Barack Obama.
Oscar C Brown-later a famous jazz musician under the name Oscar Brown jnr, was also at the time a Communist Party member. he joined in 1946 and was expelled around 1954.
In 1948 Vernon Jarrett left his job as journalist at the Chicago Defender to start a black oriented radio show “Negro Newsfront” with Oscar Brown.
Jarrett was clearly on the far left and almost certainly, like his colleague Frank Marshall Davis, a covert member of the Communist Party.
Jarrett worked hard promoting socialist causes including the communist controlled Progressive Party.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
CONGRESSWOMAN LETTER TO OBA-HUSSEIN ON TERRORISM
Below is the letter that Rep. Myrick sent to the President regarding September 11th and how his Administration is ignoring that we are, in fact, at war with an enemy that seeks to destroy those who oppose them.
September 10, 2009
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
The eighth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attack on our nation is a moment where we are reminded that we are confronting a worldwide network of Islamic terrorists, overseas and at home, who adhere to one global ideology that legitimizes and orders attacks against the United States and other countries who oppose them.
As jihadists and Islamists have stated, their goal is to topple any country that does not practice their ideology, including moderate Muslim states, and establish on their ashes a vast Islamic state that forces people to adopt their ideology, beliefs and practices.
Your Administration has failed to state this. In fact, this is the first anniversary of the September 11th attacks where our nation lives under a government that has abandoned identifying the enemy we are fighting and its ideology.
It is important to remain clear in who we are fighting and why. Clarity is, in fact, national security because only as an educated people can we identify our enemies and work to defeat them.
That is why I am troubled that eight years after jihadists brought the fight directly to our shores, your Administration has been moving backward in its clarity on who our enemies are, what they believe and what they want. In his remarks to the Center for Strategic and International Studies on August 6, 2009, your Homeland Security and Counter-terrorism advisor, Mr. John O. Brennan, laid out new concepts and words your Administration has chosen to adopt. These words and concepts are ill conceived and are erroneous.
In the search to create a new linguistic vocabulary to use with the American people in defining the enemy, Mr. Brennan called it a "transnational challenge that poses one of the greatest threats to our national security—the scourge of violent extremists who would use terrorism to slaughter Americans abroad and at home".
While our enemy clearly states they are at war with America, here, your Administration has abandoned the term “war” and labeled our response a mere “transnational challenge”. Further, your Administration said it does not want to describe this as a "global war" because it could show that "the U.S. is somehow in conflict with the rest of the world".
I have no idea what a “transnational challenge” is; neither do the American people.
This unfortunate naive phrase misses the overwhelming fact that we are deploying many forces around the world, engaging terrorists in multiple countries, operating in alliance with dozens of other militaries, fighting heavy wars in multiple battlefields and acting militarily on a daily basis, as reported daily by the media.
This war we are fighting wasn’t started by us, but it doesn’t make it any less of a war because you call it a “transnational challenge”. The fact is that we have established a very wide alliance against a very specific enemy. By claiming that we aren't in a global war against that enemy, we are handing them an unnecessary victory and confusing the American public and our allies.
Mr. Brennan also said you don’t see this battle as a fight against jihadists. He argued that "describing terrorists in this way—using a legitimate term, "jihad," meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal—risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve". Instead of jihadists, you have adopted the term “violent extremists”.
This assertion shows a systemic failure in your Administration's understanding of the ideology behind jihadism. We called Nazis Nazis in WWII because that is what they called themselves. Terrorists call themselves jihadists in their own words through texts, videos, and recordings. It is clear your Administration has not listened directly to the enemy, but to their propagandists who camouflage their ideology by claiming that "jihad" is solely self-purification. Further, the government of the United States should refrain from officially endorsing a particular theological interpretation of any religious belief; jihad as a religious notion should not be defined by the US government.
The phrase "violent extremists" does not define the essence of the foe. Not all methods used by the jihadist enemy are "violent" inasmuch as not all methods used by previous enemies were always violent. The battlefield is but one part of war. There are also the economic and political arenas that this term doesn’t grasp and describe to the American public.
It is true that this is not a new definition and has been used by government officials and experts for more than a decade, including two previous Administrations. However, I strongly opposed the use of this definition when President George W. Bush’s Administration used it, and I continue to oppose it.
The "jihad" we are confronting is political, military and ideological in nature as defined by our enemies’ own words. They call themselves “jihadists” and say they are practicing “jihad”. Thus using the term "jihadists", as long as it identifies the enemy, is not only accurate but it is a duty to our citizens because it makes it clear who we are fighting.
Mr. President, I urge you to stop using confusing and fuzzy words when speaking about the war against jihadists and Islamic terrorists. Use clear language the American public understands so they are educated on who we are fighting and why.
Stop beating around the bush: We are fighting a war…against self-proclaimed jihadists.
The anniversary of September 11th reminds us of that very clear and very simple fact.
Sincerely,
Sue Myrick
Member of Congress
September 10, 2009
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
The eighth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attack on our nation is a moment where we are reminded that we are confronting a worldwide network of Islamic terrorists, overseas and at home, who adhere to one global ideology that legitimizes and orders attacks against the United States and other countries who oppose them.
As jihadists and Islamists have stated, their goal is to topple any country that does not practice their ideology, including moderate Muslim states, and establish on their ashes a vast Islamic state that forces people to adopt their ideology, beliefs and practices.
Your Administration has failed to state this. In fact, this is the first anniversary of the September 11th attacks where our nation lives under a government that has abandoned identifying the enemy we are fighting and its ideology.
It is important to remain clear in who we are fighting and why. Clarity is, in fact, national security because only as an educated people can we identify our enemies and work to defeat them.
That is why I am troubled that eight years after jihadists brought the fight directly to our shores, your Administration has been moving backward in its clarity on who our enemies are, what they believe and what they want. In his remarks to the Center for Strategic and International Studies on August 6, 2009, your Homeland Security and Counter-terrorism advisor, Mr. John O. Brennan, laid out new concepts and words your Administration has chosen to adopt. These words and concepts are ill conceived and are erroneous.
In the search to create a new linguistic vocabulary to use with the American people in defining the enemy, Mr. Brennan called it a "transnational challenge that poses one of the greatest threats to our national security—the scourge of violent extremists who would use terrorism to slaughter Americans abroad and at home".
While our enemy clearly states they are at war with America, here, your Administration has abandoned the term “war” and labeled our response a mere “transnational challenge”. Further, your Administration said it does not want to describe this as a "global war" because it could show that "the U.S. is somehow in conflict with the rest of the world".
I have no idea what a “transnational challenge” is; neither do the American people.
This unfortunate naive phrase misses the overwhelming fact that we are deploying many forces around the world, engaging terrorists in multiple countries, operating in alliance with dozens of other militaries, fighting heavy wars in multiple battlefields and acting militarily on a daily basis, as reported daily by the media.
This war we are fighting wasn’t started by us, but it doesn’t make it any less of a war because you call it a “transnational challenge”. The fact is that we have established a very wide alliance against a very specific enemy. By claiming that we aren't in a global war against that enemy, we are handing them an unnecessary victory and confusing the American public and our allies.
Mr. Brennan also said you don’t see this battle as a fight against jihadists. He argued that "describing terrorists in this way—using a legitimate term, "jihad," meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal—risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve". Instead of jihadists, you have adopted the term “violent extremists”.
This assertion shows a systemic failure in your Administration's understanding of the ideology behind jihadism. We called Nazis Nazis in WWII because that is what they called themselves. Terrorists call themselves jihadists in their own words through texts, videos, and recordings. It is clear your Administration has not listened directly to the enemy, but to their propagandists who camouflage their ideology by claiming that "jihad" is solely self-purification. Further, the government of the United States should refrain from officially endorsing a particular theological interpretation of any religious belief; jihad as a religious notion should not be defined by the US government.
The phrase "violent extremists" does not define the essence of the foe. Not all methods used by the jihadist enemy are "violent" inasmuch as not all methods used by previous enemies were always violent. The battlefield is but one part of war. There are also the economic and political arenas that this term doesn’t grasp and describe to the American public.
It is true that this is not a new definition and has been used by government officials and experts for more than a decade, including two previous Administrations. However, I strongly opposed the use of this definition when President George W. Bush’s Administration used it, and I continue to oppose it.
The "jihad" we are confronting is political, military and ideological in nature as defined by our enemies’ own words. They call themselves “jihadists” and say they are practicing “jihad”. Thus using the term "jihadists", as long as it identifies the enemy, is not only accurate but it is a duty to our citizens because it makes it clear who we are fighting.
Mr. President, I urge you to stop using confusing and fuzzy words when speaking about the war against jihadists and Islamic terrorists. Use clear language the American public understands so they are educated on who we are fighting and why.
Stop beating around the bush: We are fighting a war…against self-proclaimed jihadists.
The anniversary of September 11th reminds us of that very clear and very simple fact.
Sincerely,
Sue Myrick
Member of Congress
Saturday, September 5, 2009
OBA-HUSSEIN'S MARXIST- ISLAMIST USA IN PROGRESS - ISLAM VERSION IN ACTION
Caliphate or Republic?
The observations by Shireen Qudosi below reveal great insight into the competing value systems of Islamists and those of us in the West.
Qudosi writes about the recent “dust-up” in San Diego between ACT! for America’s San Diego chapter and CAIR-San Diego (Council on American-Islamic Relations). In a nutshell:
CAIR did a presentation at the public library;
ACT! for America’s local chapter asked for and was granted equal time to do a presentation;
CAIR then tried to prevent ACT! for America’s local chapter from doing the presentation, and when that failed, demanded ACT! for America include a Muslim representative to provide “equal time” in the ACT! for America presentation. Double dipping in addition to their already used up equal time!
__________________________________________________
SEPTEMBER 3, 2009
“Caliphate or Republic”
How the Exchange Between CAIR and ACT! For America Highlights the Importance of Free Speech and Conservative Values.
By Shireen Qudosi • August 28, 2009
http://qudosi.com /
On July 11, 2009, the San Diego Public Library hosted CAIR’s SD Director Edward Hopida’s presentation on Islam. During the presentation, Mr. Hopida took a moment to list a number of authors whose work he felt should be avoided because (according to him) their authors possessed “no expertise” on Islam and were published because they were exploiting 9-11. The list included Steven Emerson, Hirsi Ali, Noni Darwish, Brigitte Gabriel, Robert Spencer, and an array of other writers whose work is of a controversial nature within the Muslim community.
Whatever one’s opinion may be of these writers, we cannot ignore the grand irony of suggested book banning in a public library - an event that, at the end of the day, was sponsored by tax payers. Hopida’s actions also ignore the efforts dedicated to Islam pre 9-11. His dismissal of Ali, Darwish, and Gabrielle draws attention to a larger problem of the failure of such associations and ‘experts’ to value women as witnesses.
Having attended Hopida’s presentation, San Diego ACT chapter leader Mike Hayutin took it upon himself to offer a counter argument. He approached the San Diego Public Library Director Deborah Barrow and requested the same time and sponsorship to speak of radical Islam. Unlike Hopida, Hayutin was not on a payroll and invested his own time and resources to exercise his belief in balanced representation. The request was initially reluctantly received by Director Barrow, who had likely perceived CAIR as a civil rights group and was unaware of the controversy surrounding them. However, considerable community pressure and a call from the mayor’s office facilitated Hayutin’s request. Hayutin was finally granted his opportunity to present a two hour presentation on radical elements in Islam.
His appearance however was not appreciated by CAIR, which filed a complaint letter and submitted a one-sided press release on their disapproval of Mr. Hayutin’s presentation, as well as his association with ACT, which Hopida labeled as peddling stereotypes by labeling Islam as incompatible with the West. Somehow, in midst of all this bashing, he seemed to forgotten CAIR’s own dodgy associations. CAIR also contacted the library and insisted they put a “Muslim expert” on the podium with Hayutin, rather than Hayutin hosting the event on his (as Hopida did).
The alternate seminar, accurately entitled “Caliphate or Republic”, offering an alternate view to Hopida’s original presentation, took place August 15th from 2-4 pm at the San Diego Public Library. The auditorium was packed and a healthy debate ensued, mixed with both hard core conservatives and local Muslims attempting to make the case for Islam. For the most part the Muslim representation was quite positive, and I had the opportunity to speak with a few of them post event. However, my advice to them is two-fold: 1) Don’t ambush the speaker; it makes you look desperate, and 2) if you get the chance to speak, present a solid counter argument rather than promoting your Muslim bake sale or food drive; no one is going to come to your bake sale if they still think you’re a terrorist.
All in all the event went smoothly, brought together a diverse mix that still at the end of the day agreed to disagree on most issues. A standing room only crowd also indicates an audience the library may have been overlooking. The presentation and the subsequent talks that carried on well past the event, reflected the delicate system of equality in America where both sides have a right to the soap box, to assemble freely and have their case be heard – to have a tolerant ear even if not a sympathetic ear.
However, in light of the struggle for local resident Mike Hayutin to secure the podium, and in light of Reuters picking up CAIR’s press release and passing it as ‘legitimate’ news (with no attempt to contact the other party), the clear issue is the increasing fragility of our right to free speech and the increasing subjectivity of news agencies.
The business of subjective information from authority sources doesn’t just rest with the media. When asked why Mr. Hayutin took an interest in radical Islam, he noted attending a local university panel on yet another chapter on the entanglement between Palestine and Israel. The panel, hosted by three well-respected professors and attended by hordes of students, was (according to Hayutin) completely bias in nature and presented the case in a most politically appeasing pro-Palestine format with absolutely no counter argument. Appalled and concerned for the lack of balanced information, Hayutin took it upon himself to be a source of alternate information.
Meanwhile, Hopida’s attempts to regulate free speech at a public forum is another demonstration of Muslim interest groups attempting to regulate what can and cannot constitute as valuable discussion. In short, anything that is subjectively offensive is considered insensitive and racist. As the track record shows, particularly among such Islamists, if it doesn’t favor a marginal Muslim agenda and if it in fact challenges Islamism in any context, it cannot be extended any measure of freedom. As we have seen time and time again, through protests, petitions and outright violence, if an act is critical of any element in Islam, it is not tolerated.
In San Diego, via hundreds of angry So Cal residents and at the behest of the mayor, free speech prevailed…today. However, one must stop and consider the environment we would be in were this a Caliphate in which no alternate view was tolerated. This is not such a far fetch considering the contortionist movements by law makers (both in the states and in Europe) to extend discriminatory version of ‘equality’ to Muslims – acts that immediately segregate communities and outrightly discriminate against non-Muslims.
Lawmakers insist on cultural and religious sensitivity, but since when did anything get achieved through sensitivity and mass mollycoddling?
So what is one to do when faced with a very real wolf but with no one hearing your cries? You start with those who are willing to listen. Start with think-tanks who don’t believe news should be fictional story telling, with well-networked lobbies, and the few remaining academics that are not easily swayed by university politics. Connect with a political party that appreciates the issue and doesn’t grey-wash threats as paranoia of hazy near-forgotten days of 9/11 – a recent past that somehow has been shuffled so far back in history that it’s cataloged with myths of minotaurs, mermaids and other fantastical creatures; a reality that has been been butchered by perception into a non-reality.
However, if as a society we continue to stomp and stampede, with banners of equality rattling in air, we ensure the inevitable forfeit of freedoms that are the touchstone of not just the Republicans or the Democratic ideals, but are the sacrament of what it means to be American.
ACT for America P.O. Box 12765 Pensacola, FL 32591 www.actforamerica.org
The observations by Shireen Qudosi below reveal great insight into the competing value systems of Islamists and those of us in the West.
Qudosi writes about the recent “dust-up” in San Diego between ACT! for America’s San Diego chapter and CAIR-San Diego (Council on American-Islamic Relations). In a nutshell:
CAIR did a presentation at the public library;
ACT! for America’s local chapter asked for and was granted equal time to do a presentation;
CAIR then tried to prevent ACT! for America’s local chapter from doing the presentation, and when that failed, demanded ACT! for America include a Muslim representative to provide “equal time” in the ACT! for America presentation. Double dipping in addition to their already used up equal time!
__________________________________________________
SEPTEMBER 3, 2009
“Caliphate or Republic”
How the Exchange Between CAIR and ACT! For America Highlights the Importance of Free Speech and Conservative Values.
By Shireen Qudosi • August 28, 2009
http://qudosi.com /
On July 11, 2009, the San Diego Public Library hosted CAIR’s SD Director Edward Hopida’s presentation on Islam. During the presentation, Mr. Hopida took a moment to list a number of authors whose work he felt should be avoided because (according to him) their authors possessed “no expertise” on Islam and were published because they were exploiting 9-11. The list included Steven Emerson, Hirsi Ali, Noni Darwish, Brigitte Gabriel, Robert Spencer, and an array of other writers whose work is of a controversial nature within the Muslim community.
Whatever one’s opinion may be of these writers, we cannot ignore the grand irony of suggested book banning in a public library - an event that, at the end of the day, was sponsored by tax payers. Hopida’s actions also ignore the efforts dedicated to Islam pre 9-11. His dismissal of Ali, Darwish, and Gabrielle draws attention to a larger problem of the failure of such associations and ‘experts’ to value women as witnesses.
Having attended Hopida’s presentation, San Diego ACT chapter leader Mike Hayutin took it upon himself to offer a counter argument. He approached the San Diego Public Library Director Deborah Barrow and requested the same time and sponsorship to speak of radical Islam. Unlike Hopida, Hayutin was not on a payroll and invested his own time and resources to exercise his belief in balanced representation. The request was initially reluctantly received by Director Barrow, who had likely perceived CAIR as a civil rights group and was unaware of the controversy surrounding them. However, considerable community pressure and a call from the mayor’s office facilitated Hayutin’s request. Hayutin was finally granted his opportunity to present a two hour presentation on radical elements in Islam.
His appearance however was not appreciated by CAIR, which filed a complaint letter and submitted a one-sided press release on their disapproval of Mr. Hayutin’s presentation, as well as his association with ACT, which Hopida labeled as peddling stereotypes by labeling Islam as incompatible with the West. Somehow, in midst of all this bashing, he seemed to forgotten CAIR’s own dodgy associations. CAIR also contacted the library and insisted they put a “Muslim expert” on the podium with Hayutin, rather than Hayutin hosting the event on his (as Hopida did).
The alternate seminar, accurately entitled “Caliphate or Republic”, offering an alternate view to Hopida’s original presentation, took place August 15th from 2-4 pm at the San Diego Public Library. The auditorium was packed and a healthy debate ensued, mixed with both hard core conservatives and local Muslims attempting to make the case for Islam. For the most part the Muslim representation was quite positive, and I had the opportunity to speak with a few of them post event. However, my advice to them is two-fold: 1) Don’t ambush the speaker; it makes you look desperate, and 2) if you get the chance to speak, present a solid counter argument rather than promoting your Muslim bake sale or food drive; no one is going to come to your bake sale if they still think you’re a terrorist.
All in all the event went smoothly, brought together a diverse mix that still at the end of the day agreed to disagree on most issues. A standing room only crowd also indicates an audience the library may have been overlooking. The presentation and the subsequent talks that carried on well past the event, reflected the delicate system of equality in America where both sides have a right to the soap box, to assemble freely and have their case be heard – to have a tolerant ear even if not a sympathetic ear.
However, in light of the struggle for local resident Mike Hayutin to secure the podium, and in light of Reuters picking up CAIR’s press release and passing it as ‘legitimate’ news (with no attempt to contact the other party), the clear issue is the increasing fragility of our right to free speech and the increasing subjectivity of news agencies.
The business of subjective information from authority sources doesn’t just rest with the media. When asked why Mr. Hayutin took an interest in radical Islam, he noted attending a local university panel on yet another chapter on the entanglement between Palestine and Israel. The panel, hosted by three well-respected professors and attended by hordes of students, was (according to Hayutin) completely bias in nature and presented the case in a most politically appeasing pro-Palestine format with absolutely no counter argument. Appalled and concerned for the lack of balanced information, Hayutin took it upon himself to be a source of alternate information.
Meanwhile, Hopida’s attempts to regulate free speech at a public forum is another demonstration of Muslim interest groups attempting to regulate what can and cannot constitute as valuable discussion. In short, anything that is subjectively offensive is considered insensitive and racist. As the track record shows, particularly among such Islamists, if it doesn’t favor a marginal Muslim agenda and if it in fact challenges Islamism in any context, it cannot be extended any measure of freedom. As we have seen time and time again, through protests, petitions and outright violence, if an act is critical of any element in Islam, it is not tolerated.
In San Diego, via hundreds of angry So Cal residents and at the behest of the mayor, free speech prevailed…today. However, one must stop and consider the environment we would be in were this a Caliphate in which no alternate view was tolerated. This is not such a far fetch considering the contortionist movements by law makers (both in the states and in Europe) to extend discriminatory version of ‘equality’ to Muslims – acts that immediately segregate communities and outrightly discriminate against non-Muslims.
Lawmakers insist on cultural and religious sensitivity, but since when did anything get achieved through sensitivity and mass mollycoddling?
So what is one to do when faced with a very real wolf but with no one hearing your cries? You start with those who are willing to listen. Start with think-tanks who don’t believe news should be fictional story telling, with well-networked lobbies, and the few remaining academics that are not easily swayed by university politics. Connect with a political party that appreciates the issue and doesn’t grey-wash threats as paranoia of hazy near-forgotten days of 9/11 – a recent past that somehow has been shuffled so far back in history that it’s cataloged with myths of minotaurs, mermaids and other fantastical creatures; a reality that has been been butchered by perception into a non-reality.
However, if as a society we continue to stomp and stampede, with banners of equality rattling in air, we ensure the inevitable forfeit of freedoms that are the touchstone of not just the Republicans or the Democratic ideals, but are the sacrament of what it means to be American.
ACT for America P.O. Box 12765 Pensacola, FL 32591 www.actforamerica.org
Thursday, September 3, 2009
COMMUNIST SAUL ALINSKY RULES OF POLITICAL WARFARE USED BY OBAMA AND HIS CORRUPT TEAM
Hey, America! Take a look at this and see what you can use against the Marxist-Islamist Oba-Hussein-Khomeini administration.
Here it is, the liberals guide for political warfare as developed by Saul Alinsky. Read them , learn them and apply them daily. Beat the socialist with their own game!
RULE 1: "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." Power is derived from 2 main sources - money and people. "Have-Nots" must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
RULE 2: "Never go outside the expertise of your people." It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don't address the "real" issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
RULE 3: "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity's very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
RULE 6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They're doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid "un-fun" activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
RULE 7: "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Don't become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
RULE 8: "Keep the pressure on. Never let up." Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
RULE 9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists' minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
RULE 10: "If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive." Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management's wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
RULE 11: "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." Never let the enemy score points because you're caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
Here it is, the liberals guide for political warfare as developed by Saul Alinsky. Read them , learn them and apply them daily. Beat the socialist with their own game!
RULE 1: "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." Power is derived from 2 main sources - money and people. "Have-Nots" must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
RULE 2: "Never go outside the expertise of your people." It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don't address the "real" issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
RULE 3: "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity's very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
RULE 6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They're doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid "un-fun" activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
RULE 7: "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Don't become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
RULE 8: "Keep the pressure on. Never let up." Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
RULE 9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists' minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
RULE 10: "If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive." Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management's wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
RULE 11: "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." Never let the enemy score points because you're caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
Thursday, August 27, 2009
44 OR SO CZARIST INSANE & UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKE OVER OF THE USA
America has a darkness, a darkness on the edge of our liberties and that darkness now operates out of Washington DC
Czarist Insanity In America
By Bill Turner Wednesday, August 26, 2009
The Boss, Bruce Springsteen sings:
Everybody’s got a secret, Sonny,
Something that they just can’t face,
Some folks spend their whole lives trying to keep it,
They carry it with them every step that they take.
Till some day they just cut it loose
Cut it loose or let it drag ‘em down,
Where no one asks any questions,
or looks too long in your face,
In the darkness on the edge of town.
America has a darkness, a darkness on the edge of our liberties and that darkness now operates out of Washington DC, the White House specifically. President B. Hussein Obama has the darkness of the czars wrapped around him as if they were the shrouds of war, the war upon America. As Americans we are obligated to take a very close look at the minions B. Hussein Obama surrounds himself with and then determine if Dear Leader is committing crimes against America and is in violation of his oath of office, to uphold and defend the Constitution.
Housing Czar, Adolfo Carrion Jr. is a former Bronx Borough President and now he is the Housing and Urban Development Czar. He also sits on the New York City Off Site Betting, Site Selection Committee. He is a former President of a race based group that helped people become permanent resident aliens. Adolfo was integral in helping the Yankees build a new stadium in New York, using public funds. He is also in favor of taxing drivers who use their cars to get to work, “Carrion is the most vocal outer-borough supporter of Mayor Bloomberg’s congestion pricing plan which would charge drivers a fee to enter Manhattan between the hours of 8am and 6pm in an effort to reduce congestion and minimize the City’s air pollution”. I do not see anything in his career that would warrant such a position in the White House, unless of course you give extra weight to his desire to tax people for driving to work.
Alan Bersin is the Border Czar. In preparation for this important position, Alan was the Secretary of Education for California, where he saw first hand what happens when you say, “Red rover, red rover, send all your illegal’s on over”. Given Dear Leaders desire to give amnesty to all the criminals who are in America illegally, I guess Mr. Bersin doesn’t really need to know anything about border security. I’m sure he has a pulse and is taking up space.
Michael Taylor the Food Safety Czar seems to have upset the left. So far, so good. But, I have to admit I am torn on this one. Mr. Taylor is a former Monsanto executive who helped draft the Food Safety Bill, which has upset the left. The bill will do away with hippie created farmers markets wherein they sell “organic foods” they grew and “organic soap” they apparently do not use. So far, so good. Two pluses for Mr. Taylor. But, there is this:
According to Gunny G Online: “This astounding control will include the elimination of organic farming by eliminating manure, mandating GMO animal feed, imposing animal drugs, and ordering applications of petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides. Farmers, thus, will be locked not only into the industrialization of once normal and organic farms but into the forced purchase of industry’s products.”
HR 2749 creates severe criminal and civil penalties, including prison terms of up to 10 years and/or fines of up to $100,000 for each violation. Does it include judicial review, Congressional oversight, a defined and limited set of penalties and punishments for a defined set of “crimes”? Not even. The so called Food Safety Bill hands carte blanch enforcement to the whims of Obama’s Food Czar.
Although I am in favor of fining hippies and putting them jail, it just isn’t practical, as it violates their liberties and if it violates their liberties, it poses a threat to mine. Herein is where we see the fatal flaw with Mr. Taylor, he has no regard for individual liberty.
The office of Technology Czar is held by Aneesh Chopra. Chopra was Managing Director for the Advisory Board Company, a health care think tank for hospitals and health systems. While there, he led the firm’s Financial Leadership Council and the Working Council for Health Plan Executives. Well, I guess Chopra is here for his health care work, not his computer skills. Lets face it, he headed technology for the State of Virginia, not a pre-cursor for his current position as czar, unless you throw in the health care piece.
Arne Duncan, the Education Czar developed his skills for this position by, uh, um, being the CEO of Chicago Public Schools. Arne was raised in Hyde Park, home of Bill Ayers, B. Hussein Obama and Louis Farrakhan. Draw your own conclusions. Aside from playing basketball in Australia, living in Dear Leaders hood, and giving Obama someone to shoot hoops with, there seems to be no real qualifications for the position of Education Czar. Chicago connections, keep you connected. Welcome to the machine.
The Latin America Czar is Arturo Valenzuela. Aside from being a leftist from Chile, working for Walter Mondale, and serving under Bill Clinton handling foreign policy for Mexico, why is he here? Aside from the exportation of illegal immigrants & drugs, I didn’t know Mexico had a foreign policy.
Ashton Carter is the Weapons Czar. Aside from being the head of the ATF, this has got to be the coolest job in the presidents administration. His time spent in the Clinton administration included the agreement freezing North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. We all know how well that worked. Cough. Ashton was also a consultant at Goldman Sachs, an interesting place for someone who specializes in weapons and nuclear weapons.
Cameron Davis is the Great Lakes Czar. I could not figure out why the Great Lakes, the not so great lakes, or any other lakes needed a czar, then it hit me, this knucklehead must be from Chicago. So, I started looking and guess what? He is. The Great Lakes Czar is responsible for cleaning up the Great Lakes (never mind the rest of them, Obama doesn’t live near there). Cameron Davis is President of the Alliance for the Great Lakes, an environmental group wanting to spend $20 billion dollars of tax payer money to clean up the great lakes. While we are spending all this money to clean up the American side of the Great Lakes, what is Canada doing to clean up their side? Letting the wind carry their trash into Chicago.
Carol Browner, Energy Czar/Climate Change Czar, is a Clinton legacy, serving under Bill for two terms. She worked hard to create a ban on offshore drilling in Florida, so I am guessing “drill here/drill now” is not part of the energy plan. Given what people say about her, “She kicks the door open, throws in a hand grenade, and then walks in to shoot who’s left. She really doesn’t like to compromise”, she should fit right in with Dear Leader, the Emmanuel’s and Axelrod. Algore is described as her most important ally. Swell. Not that she would be the first one in the Obama cabinet to have ethics issues but, she is on the board of directors for APX, Inc., which specializes in technology infrastructure for the environmental commodities markets, including those for carbon offsets. Aside from having her hand in “carbon offsets” she continues to say that “global warming is the biggest challenge ever faced”.
Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein appears to be one of B. Hussein Obama’s most controversial appointees, not just because he appears to be a taco shy of the combo plate, but because, well, because he does appear to be a taco shy of the combo plate. Sunstein is a visiting professor at the University of Chicago. Shock. Cass advocates the Second Bill of Rights, as presented by FDR. Among these rights are a right to an education, a right to a home, a right to health care, and a right to protection against monopolies; Sunstein argues that the Second Bill of Rights has had a large international impact and should be revived in the United States. He also argues that the internet weakens democracy because it allows people to obtain information outside what is fed to them. He is also an advocate of and author of a book about “nudge”, wherein he states that policies should not be radically changed, just nudged in the direction of the cause, until they are nudged to where the left wants them to be. Sunstein also was openly and actively opposed to the impeachment of Bill Clinton. He wrote a book, “Animal Rights”, in which he argued that attorneys should be permitted to sue for violations of existing animal protection laws, naming the animals as plaintiffs. Yes, he thinks your dog should have an attorney and if the cat feels like she is not getting equal representation, she gets one too. Cass wants to limit free speech and there is no liberty without dependency upon the government is his creed. This is the man in charge of regulations. He is the poster child for why White House Czars should be vetted by Congress.
GITMO Closure Czar Daniel Fried has a mandate, from B. Hussein Obama, to persuade European countries as well as Yemen to take back some of the 240 or so long-held prisoners at GITMO. We are at war and his job is to release enemy combatants to go back to the battlefield to kill US troops. He is opposed to recognizing Armenian genocide, kind of like denying the holocaust happened, but different.
Water Czar, David Hayes, aside from working on the Kerry campaign, an almost unforgivable act, has an annual budget of over $16 billion dollars. Unlike Cass, this guy looks relatively normal for a progressive. Wow.
Admiral Dennis Blair serves as the Intelligence Czar. Given the fact he has not arrested or filed charges against all of the oath breakers in the White House, one can assume he has no intention of honoring his oath either. Blair disobeyed orders from civilians in the Clinton Administration during the 1999 East Timorese crisis during his tenure as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Command. Amid growing international concern over violence against the independence movement in Indonesian-occupied East Timor, Blair was ordered to meet with General Wiranto, the commander of the Indonesian military, and to tell him to shut down the pro-Indonesia militia, instead he presented Wiranto with an offer of military assistance and a personal invitation to be Blair’s guest in Hawaii.[6] Consequently, Wiranto’s forces increased the Timor killings. A rogue Intelligence Czar could be fun‚Ķ.or a whole lot of trouble. Not to be outdone by the tax cheats in the obama administration, Blair sits on the board of directors for the company that makes the F22 Raptor and is a shareholder as well. While still a skipper in the Navy, Blair attempted to water ski behind his destroyer.
Mid East Policy Czar Dennis Ross is disliked by the Palestinians because he is Jewish and not liked by Israel because they say he is self hating. I guess B. Hussein Obama didn’t think the Mid-East had enough excitement.
Douglas Lute, Czar of War was put in place by President Bush and president obama had the sense to keep him in place. He is still a czar and as such, has to go, buh bye.
Stimulus Czar (aka Fox Watching Hen House Czar) Earl Devaney is a former police officer, secret service officer and US Inspector General since 1999. He has led numerous investigations of notoriety, but the Jack Abramoff scandal tops the list. Good man, but still a czar.
Auto Recovery Czar, Edward Montgomery, former Dean of Behavioral Science, elbow deep in recovery money and in charge of the factories that will build our cars. Interesting.
TARP Czar Elizabeth Warren, a contributing blogger to the obama friendly Huffington Post and contributor to the Dr. Phil show. In 2009, Warren co-authored a second study on medically-related bankruptcies, claiming the number of medical bankruptcies had increased to 70%. This study attracted significant national attention and controversy. Economics blogger Megan McArdle noted out that no other studies find this same proportion of medical bankruptcies and that the number of medical bankruptcies is actually falling (though not as rapidly as other bankruptcies). So, by providing Dear Leader with ammunition, albeit, false ammunition for his health care campaign, Elizabeth is given the job of overseeing TARP funds. Nice.
This is the first in a series regarding the czars in the obama White House.. I will leave it up to you as to how many of them are loons, communists, anti-capitalists, un-American, or just plain self serving.
Keep in mind, the Constitution does not allow for nobility in America, nor does it allow for a governmental structure outside the legislative, executive and judicial branches. Czars are not Constitutional.
These clowns must go, even the ones who don’t appear to be ethically or morally challenged. More to come.
Czarist Insanity In America
By Bill Turner Wednesday, August 26, 2009
The Boss, Bruce Springsteen sings:
Everybody’s got a secret, Sonny,
Something that they just can’t face,
Some folks spend their whole lives trying to keep it,
They carry it with them every step that they take.
Till some day they just cut it loose
Cut it loose or let it drag ‘em down,
Where no one asks any questions,
or looks too long in your face,
In the darkness on the edge of town.
America has a darkness, a darkness on the edge of our liberties and that darkness now operates out of Washington DC, the White House specifically. President B. Hussein Obama has the darkness of the czars wrapped around him as if they were the shrouds of war, the war upon America. As Americans we are obligated to take a very close look at the minions B. Hussein Obama surrounds himself with and then determine if Dear Leader is committing crimes against America and is in violation of his oath of office, to uphold and defend the Constitution.
Housing Czar, Adolfo Carrion Jr. is a former Bronx Borough President and now he is the Housing and Urban Development Czar. He also sits on the New York City Off Site Betting, Site Selection Committee. He is a former President of a race based group that helped people become permanent resident aliens. Adolfo was integral in helping the Yankees build a new stadium in New York, using public funds. He is also in favor of taxing drivers who use their cars to get to work, “Carrion is the most vocal outer-borough supporter of Mayor Bloomberg’s congestion pricing plan which would charge drivers a fee to enter Manhattan between the hours of 8am and 6pm in an effort to reduce congestion and minimize the City’s air pollution”. I do not see anything in his career that would warrant such a position in the White House, unless of course you give extra weight to his desire to tax people for driving to work.
Alan Bersin is the Border Czar. In preparation for this important position, Alan was the Secretary of Education for California, where he saw first hand what happens when you say, “Red rover, red rover, send all your illegal’s on over”. Given Dear Leaders desire to give amnesty to all the criminals who are in America illegally, I guess Mr. Bersin doesn’t really need to know anything about border security. I’m sure he has a pulse and is taking up space.
Michael Taylor the Food Safety Czar seems to have upset the left. So far, so good. But, I have to admit I am torn on this one. Mr. Taylor is a former Monsanto executive who helped draft the Food Safety Bill, which has upset the left. The bill will do away with hippie created farmers markets wherein they sell “organic foods” they grew and “organic soap” they apparently do not use. So far, so good. Two pluses for Mr. Taylor. But, there is this:
According to Gunny G Online: “This astounding control will include the elimination of organic farming by eliminating manure, mandating GMO animal feed, imposing animal drugs, and ordering applications of petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides. Farmers, thus, will be locked not only into the industrialization of once normal and organic farms but into the forced purchase of industry’s products.”
HR 2749 creates severe criminal and civil penalties, including prison terms of up to 10 years and/or fines of up to $100,000 for each violation. Does it include judicial review, Congressional oversight, a defined and limited set of penalties and punishments for a defined set of “crimes”? Not even. The so called Food Safety Bill hands carte blanch enforcement to the whims of Obama’s Food Czar.
Although I am in favor of fining hippies and putting them jail, it just isn’t practical, as it violates their liberties and if it violates their liberties, it poses a threat to mine. Herein is where we see the fatal flaw with Mr. Taylor, he has no regard for individual liberty.
The office of Technology Czar is held by Aneesh Chopra. Chopra was Managing Director for the Advisory Board Company, a health care think tank for hospitals and health systems. While there, he led the firm’s Financial Leadership Council and the Working Council for Health Plan Executives. Well, I guess Chopra is here for his health care work, not his computer skills. Lets face it, he headed technology for the State of Virginia, not a pre-cursor for his current position as czar, unless you throw in the health care piece.
Arne Duncan, the Education Czar developed his skills for this position by, uh, um, being the CEO of Chicago Public Schools. Arne was raised in Hyde Park, home of Bill Ayers, B. Hussein Obama and Louis Farrakhan. Draw your own conclusions. Aside from playing basketball in Australia, living in Dear Leaders hood, and giving Obama someone to shoot hoops with, there seems to be no real qualifications for the position of Education Czar. Chicago connections, keep you connected. Welcome to the machine.
The Latin America Czar is Arturo Valenzuela. Aside from being a leftist from Chile, working for Walter Mondale, and serving under Bill Clinton handling foreign policy for Mexico, why is he here? Aside from the exportation of illegal immigrants & drugs, I didn’t know Mexico had a foreign policy.
Ashton Carter is the Weapons Czar. Aside from being the head of the ATF, this has got to be the coolest job in the presidents administration. His time spent in the Clinton administration included the agreement freezing North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. We all know how well that worked. Cough. Ashton was also a consultant at Goldman Sachs, an interesting place for someone who specializes in weapons and nuclear weapons.
Cameron Davis is the Great Lakes Czar. I could not figure out why the Great Lakes, the not so great lakes, or any other lakes needed a czar, then it hit me, this knucklehead must be from Chicago. So, I started looking and guess what? He is. The Great Lakes Czar is responsible for cleaning up the Great Lakes (never mind the rest of them, Obama doesn’t live near there). Cameron Davis is President of the Alliance for the Great Lakes, an environmental group wanting to spend $20 billion dollars of tax payer money to clean up the great lakes. While we are spending all this money to clean up the American side of the Great Lakes, what is Canada doing to clean up their side? Letting the wind carry their trash into Chicago.
Carol Browner, Energy Czar/Climate Change Czar, is a Clinton legacy, serving under Bill for two terms. She worked hard to create a ban on offshore drilling in Florida, so I am guessing “drill here/drill now” is not part of the energy plan. Given what people say about her, “She kicks the door open, throws in a hand grenade, and then walks in to shoot who’s left. She really doesn’t like to compromise”, she should fit right in with Dear Leader, the Emmanuel’s and Axelrod. Algore is described as her most important ally. Swell. Not that she would be the first one in the Obama cabinet to have ethics issues but, she is on the board of directors for APX, Inc., which specializes in technology infrastructure for the environmental commodities markets, including those for carbon offsets. Aside from having her hand in “carbon offsets” she continues to say that “global warming is the biggest challenge ever faced”.
Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein appears to be one of B. Hussein Obama’s most controversial appointees, not just because he appears to be a taco shy of the combo plate, but because, well, because he does appear to be a taco shy of the combo plate. Sunstein is a visiting professor at the University of Chicago. Shock. Cass advocates the Second Bill of Rights, as presented by FDR. Among these rights are a right to an education, a right to a home, a right to health care, and a right to protection against monopolies; Sunstein argues that the Second Bill of Rights has had a large international impact and should be revived in the United States. He also argues that the internet weakens democracy because it allows people to obtain information outside what is fed to them. He is also an advocate of and author of a book about “nudge”, wherein he states that policies should not be radically changed, just nudged in the direction of the cause, until they are nudged to where the left wants them to be. Sunstein also was openly and actively opposed to the impeachment of Bill Clinton. He wrote a book, “Animal Rights”, in which he argued that attorneys should be permitted to sue for violations of existing animal protection laws, naming the animals as plaintiffs. Yes, he thinks your dog should have an attorney and if the cat feels like she is not getting equal representation, she gets one too. Cass wants to limit free speech and there is no liberty without dependency upon the government is his creed. This is the man in charge of regulations. He is the poster child for why White House Czars should be vetted by Congress.
GITMO Closure Czar Daniel Fried has a mandate, from B. Hussein Obama, to persuade European countries as well as Yemen to take back some of the 240 or so long-held prisoners at GITMO. We are at war and his job is to release enemy combatants to go back to the battlefield to kill US troops. He is opposed to recognizing Armenian genocide, kind of like denying the holocaust happened, but different.
Water Czar, David Hayes, aside from working on the Kerry campaign, an almost unforgivable act, has an annual budget of over $16 billion dollars. Unlike Cass, this guy looks relatively normal for a progressive. Wow.
Admiral Dennis Blair serves as the Intelligence Czar. Given the fact he has not arrested or filed charges against all of the oath breakers in the White House, one can assume he has no intention of honoring his oath either. Blair disobeyed orders from civilians in the Clinton Administration during the 1999 East Timorese crisis during his tenure as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Command. Amid growing international concern over violence against the independence movement in Indonesian-occupied East Timor, Blair was ordered to meet with General Wiranto, the commander of the Indonesian military, and to tell him to shut down the pro-Indonesia militia, instead he presented Wiranto with an offer of military assistance and a personal invitation to be Blair’s guest in Hawaii.[6] Consequently, Wiranto’s forces increased the Timor killings. A rogue Intelligence Czar could be fun‚Ķ.or a whole lot of trouble. Not to be outdone by the tax cheats in the obama administration, Blair sits on the board of directors for the company that makes the F22 Raptor and is a shareholder as well. While still a skipper in the Navy, Blair attempted to water ski behind his destroyer.
Mid East Policy Czar Dennis Ross is disliked by the Palestinians because he is Jewish and not liked by Israel because they say he is self hating. I guess B. Hussein Obama didn’t think the Mid-East had enough excitement.
Douglas Lute, Czar of War was put in place by President Bush and president obama had the sense to keep him in place. He is still a czar and as such, has to go, buh bye.
Stimulus Czar (aka Fox Watching Hen House Czar) Earl Devaney is a former police officer, secret service officer and US Inspector General since 1999. He has led numerous investigations of notoriety, but the Jack Abramoff scandal tops the list. Good man, but still a czar.
Auto Recovery Czar, Edward Montgomery, former Dean of Behavioral Science, elbow deep in recovery money and in charge of the factories that will build our cars. Interesting.
TARP Czar Elizabeth Warren, a contributing blogger to the obama friendly Huffington Post and contributor to the Dr. Phil show. In 2009, Warren co-authored a second study on medically-related bankruptcies, claiming the number of medical bankruptcies had increased to 70%. This study attracted significant national attention and controversy. Economics blogger Megan McArdle noted out that no other studies find this same proportion of medical bankruptcies and that the number of medical bankruptcies is actually falling (though not as rapidly as other bankruptcies). So, by providing Dear Leader with ammunition, albeit, false ammunition for his health care campaign, Elizabeth is given the job of overseeing TARP funds. Nice.
This is the first in a series regarding the czars in the obama White House.. I will leave it up to you as to how many of them are loons, communists, anti-capitalists, un-American, or just plain self serving.
Keep in mind, the Constitution does not allow for nobility in America, nor does it allow for a governmental structure outside the legislative, executive and judicial branches. Czars are not Constitutional.
These clowns must go, even the ones who don’t appear to be ethically or morally challenged. More to come.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
USEFUL IDIOT BRENNAN DOES OBAMA'S BIDDING -- SAYS ABOUT HEZBULLAH "THEY CANNOT BE TERRORISTS, THEY HAVE LAWYERS"!!!
by Barry Rubin
It wasn't enough that President Obama's counterterrorism advisor, John Brennan gave a speech which-possibly for the first time in U.S. history-gave a government definition of a religious practice, endorsing Jihad as a noble pursuit. No, he also gave a basic endorsement to a terrorist group which has murdered several hundred Americans.
Please understand, Brennan is not engaging in appeasement. It's much worse.
He thinks he's a brilliant strategist who is going to manipulate Hizballah into being pro-American without knowing very much about the Middle East, Lebanon, Iran, Islamism, or even his supposed subject of expertise, terrorism.
Sound like an exaggeration? Keep reading.
Brennan made clear his views on Hizballah before being appointed by the president, which means he shouldn't have been appointed. The problem isn't just that his view is politically unpalatable and strategically disastrous, it is also enormously ignorant.
Here's what Brennan wrote in an article for ANNALS, AAPSS, 618, July 2008. What it says on Iran is equally bad. But let's focus today on Hizballah:
"It would not be foolhardy, however, for the United States to tolerate, and even to encourage, greater assimilation of Hezbollah into Lebanon's political system, a process that is subject to Iranian influence. Hezbollah is already represented in the Lebanese parliament and its members have previously served in the
Lebanese cabinet, reflections of Hezbollah's interest in shaping Lebanon's political future from within government institutions.
This political involvement is a far cry from Hezbollah's genesis as solely a terrorist organization dedicated to murder, kidnapping, and violence. Not coincidentally, the evolution of Hezballah into a fully vested player in the Lebanese political system has been accompanied by a marked reduction in terrorist attacks carried out by the organization.
The best hope for maintaining this trend and for reducing the influence of violent extremists within the organization-as well as the influence of extremist Iranian officials who view Hezbollah primarily as a pawn of Tehran-is to increase Hezbollah's stake in Lebanon's struggling democratic processes"
This kind of thinking would do far more than bury Lebanon. It would bury U.S. interests and influence in the Middle East. And so it is only appropriate to quote William Shakespeare's lines for another funeral oration: "If you have tears, prepare to shed them now!"
Yes, it would be foolhardy for the United States to encourage growing influence and power for a radical Islamist terrorist group that is a client of Syria and reasonably close to being an agent of Iran. Brennan seems to give no evidence of any serious knowledge about the Middle East.
Hizballah isn't being "assimilated" into Lebanon's political system, it is trying to take over Lebanon to the greatest extent possible. Just like when the Bolsheviks and Nazis ran candidates that wasn't proof that they were being "assimilated" into the Russian and German systems. (Imagine if a British minister had proposed back then a policy of encouraging Communist or Nazi participation in government on the grounds that this would moderate them.)
But why can't a terrorist or Islamist revolutionary group engage in normal politics? Yes, it might not kill people for a bit, mainly because it plans to do so when that's necessary to advance its cause or--even better---when it takes power.
Hizballah's maximum goal is to seize state power in Lebanon and to drive out all Western influence, while wiping Israel off the map and extending Islamist rule over the entire region. But that doesn't mean it can't have interim goals. It's minimum goal (already accomplished) is to become the strongest single force in the country, to build up a powerful, highly trained militia, to attack Israel whenever it desires, and to gain full control of all Shi'a areas in the country especially in south Lebanon.
How does involvement in electoral politics prove-and the same applies to Hamas-that it doesn't remain a revolutionary Islamist group promoting Iranian and Syrian influence which will indulge in terrorism when it feels that tactic to be useful?
And how could anyone be so dumb not to understand this?
By the way, he knows nothing about how Hizballah has behaved in politics. What have been its efforts? To gain control of the government or at least veto power, to prevent any attempt to disarm its militia or limit its arms' smuggling (Syrian arms paid for with Iranian money).
And why did Hizballah walk out of the government the first time? Over its demand to kill the international investigation of the murder of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and a dozen other terrorist acts.
In other words, the "moderate parliamentary" Hizballah left the government in order to protect previous terrorist attacks from being punished. Doesn't this show their continued involvement in...terrorism?
Yet even this nonsense is dimmed by what Brennan says next. It just so happens that Hizballah stopped doing terrorism because it was entering politics? Has Brennan forgotten the attacks on Israel which triggered a massive war, so destructive for Lebanon, just two years earlier? Hizballah claimed victory but suffered material defeat.
Note the inability of administration officials-this isn't the first time-to discount totally the fact that force sometimes has a deterrent effect. Contemplate the meaning of that for America's future foreign policy.
But that's what he said before taking office. After his Jihad-endorsing speech, Brennan answered questions. Only one newspaper in the world published the transcript, as far as I can discover, the Seoul Times in South Korea. But Brennan's statement can be found online in a sound recording.
Let me point out that he was answering a question from Bob Dreyfuss of the far-left The Nation magazine, who is not exactly a flaming American patriot. Dreyfuss mentioned that he has had personal discussions with Brennan in which the latter, "suggested that it might be possible to have a dialogue with Hamas and Hezbollah."
[Dreyfuss is determined to "out" Brennan as he tries to pull him further to the left. On his blog, Dreyfuss writes: "In fact, as I alluded to in my question, Brennan had told me (before taking a job in the Obama administration, but while serving as Obama's top adviser on intelligence issues) that talking to Hamas and Hezbollah is the right thing to do."]
Brennan didn't deny it but did say he thought Hamas was still a terrorist group. [This might just be for public consumption. Privately, if what he says about Hizballah is true--once a movement runs candidates that must mean to him that it is a candidate for being an American ally.]
But here's what he said about Hizballah:
"Hezbollah started out as purely a terrorist organization back in the early 1980s and has evolved significantly over time. And now it has members of parliament, in the cabinet; there are lawyers, doctors, others who are part of the Hezbollah organization.
"However, within Hezbollah, there's still a terrorist core. And hopefully those elements within the Shia community in Lebanon and within Hezbollah at large - they're going to continue to look at that extremist terrorist core as being something that is anathema to what, in fact, they're trying to accomplish in terms of their aspirations about being part of the political process in Lebanon.
And so, quite frankly, I'm pleased to see that a lot of Hezbollah individuals are in fact renouncing that type of terrorism and violence and are trying to participate in the political process in a very legitimate fashion."
So in other words it cannot be terrorist because it has parliamentarians, doctors, and even lawyers. Sticking with doctors for the moment, I can think of terrorist doctors who led some of the most terrorist PLO and Palestinian groups, the number-two leader of al-Qaida, and several of Hamas's top leaders. And by the way, doesn't Hamas have parliamentarians and cabinet members?
You see, friends, that's why I use the word "stupid" here even though, forgive me, it isn't a proper academic or analytical term. The following is my satire, not an actual quote:
Brennan: Hizballah can't be terrorist because they have cabinet members, lawyers, and doctors but Hamas is terrorist.
Reporter: But doesn't Hamas have cabinet members, lawyers, and doctors, too?
Brennan: Um, er, uh....
You don't make a statement so easily reduced to rubble if you really understand your topic.
As for "terrorist core," what are we talking about, some small marginal group? In Arabic, Hizballah leaders are constantly explaining there is no such thing as a "military" and a "civilian" wing. They speak freely of their devotion to Iran's regime and the parliamentarians talk about their devout loyalty to the same leaders who give orders to the militia and for terrorist operations.
And who are "a lot of Hezbollah individuals" renouncing terrorism and violence? Don't you get it, Brennan, that Hezbollah never ever had to renounce terrorism and violence to enter politics? (Neither did Hamas for that matter.)
Here are just two examples among many regarding things the president's terrorism advisor is unaware.
Nawaf Musawi, head of Hizballah's "political wing" says:
"Fundamentally, our role in the party is Jihad work. Without it, there's no value or role for Lebanon. If I had the opportunity to go back, I would have chosen the path of military jihad, because the position of a true warrior (muhajid) is more important than that of a member of parliament."
And here is Hizballah second-in-command Naim Qassem:
"All political, social and jihad work is tied to the decisions of this leadership. The same leadership that directs the parliamentary and government work also leads jihad actions in the struggle against Israel."
Moreover, is Brennan unaware of the fact that:
--Hizballah's arms are paid for by Iran and supplied by Syria, Is the United States going to compete with their influence when Hizballah leaders admit the organization was formed and ran for parliament only with approval from Tehran?
--Does Brennan know the name of Hizballah's political party?
--Has he any clue that Hizballah buys influence with Iranian money?
--Is he aware that Hizballah has been repeatedly threatening to wage terror attacks on UNIFIL if it tries to fulfill its UN mandate of keeping the group out of the south?
--Does he recall that Hizballah launched an invasion of the Christian and Druze areas, being stopped only because of ferocious fighting by the Druze militia?
--Has he ever read any of the antisemitic, anti-American speeches made by Hizballah leaders?
--Is he aware at all of Hizballah involvement in terrorist acts against Americans, including kidnappings, murders, and the assault on the Marine barracks to name a few examples? (Leaving aside a long list of attacks on Israel and the terrorist bombing of the Jewish center in Argentina with great loss of life?)
--Incidentally, shouldn't someone in his position be talking about punishing, not rewarding, terrorists with so much American blood on their hands? Shouldn't he be setting some tough preconditions--turn over those responsible, apologize and formally reject terrorism--before talking about U.S. support for Hizballah?
--Extra credit question: How do you think Lebanese opponents of Hizballah--which include the majority of Christians, Sunni Muslims, and Druze, along with a Shia minority--feel about having the world's leading democracy endorse those who want to turn their country into a nightmare dictatorship? How do you think Hizballah leaders and Iran's regime feels in reading stuff like Brennan's speech? Compare and contrast.
I'll stop here but there's a lot more one can say. This man is dangerously ignorant and holds very scary policy views. There is something seriously wrong with an administration who would have such a man as its counterterrorist advisor.
Frankly, Brennan should be pressed into resigning or at least subjected to some serious and detailed questioning about his views, statements, and alleged knowledge. "It seems," as one Syrian dissident put it, "that instead of peeling Syria away from Iran, Obama administration's strategy is peeling America away from the West."
http://www.rightsidenews.com/200908115906/editorial/brennan-on-hizballah-they-cant-be-terrorists-they-have-lawyers.html
It wasn't enough that President Obama's counterterrorism advisor, John Brennan gave a speech which-possibly for the first time in U.S. history-gave a government definition of a religious practice, endorsing Jihad as a noble pursuit. No, he also gave a basic endorsement to a terrorist group which has murdered several hundred Americans.
Please understand, Brennan is not engaging in appeasement. It's much worse.
He thinks he's a brilliant strategist who is going to manipulate Hizballah into being pro-American without knowing very much about the Middle East, Lebanon, Iran, Islamism, or even his supposed subject of expertise, terrorism.
Sound like an exaggeration? Keep reading.
Brennan made clear his views on Hizballah before being appointed by the president, which means he shouldn't have been appointed. The problem isn't just that his view is politically unpalatable and strategically disastrous, it is also enormously ignorant.
Here's what Brennan wrote in an article for ANNALS, AAPSS, 618, July 2008. What it says on Iran is equally bad. But let's focus today on Hizballah:
"It would not be foolhardy, however, for the United States to tolerate, and even to encourage, greater assimilation of Hezbollah into Lebanon's political system, a process that is subject to Iranian influence. Hezbollah is already represented in the Lebanese parliament and its members have previously served in the
Lebanese cabinet, reflections of Hezbollah's interest in shaping Lebanon's political future from within government institutions.
This political involvement is a far cry from Hezbollah's genesis as solely a terrorist organization dedicated to murder, kidnapping, and violence. Not coincidentally, the evolution of Hezballah into a fully vested player in the Lebanese political system has been accompanied by a marked reduction in terrorist attacks carried out by the organization.
The best hope for maintaining this trend and for reducing the influence of violent extremists within the organization-as well as the influence of extremist Iranian officials who view Hezbollah primarily as a pawn of Tehran-is to increase Hezbollah's stake in Lebanon's struggling democratic processes"
This kind of thinking would do far more than bury Lebanon. It would bury U.S. interests and influence in the Middle East. And so it is only appropriate to quote William Shakespeare's lines for another funeral oration: "If you have tears, prepare to shed them now!"
Yes, it would be foolhardy for the United States to encourage growing influence and power for a radical Islamist terrorist group that is a client of Syria and reasonably close to being an agent of Iran. Brennan seems to give no evidence of any serious knowledge about the Middle East.
Hizballah isn't being "assimilated" into Lebanon's political system, it is trying to take over Lebanon to the greatest extent possible. Just like when the Bolsheviks and Nazis ran candidates that wasn't proof that they were being "assimilated" into the Russian and German systems. (Imagine if a British minister had proposed back then a policy of encouraging Communist or Nazi participation in government on the grounds that this would moderate them.)
But why can't a terrorist or Islamist revolutionary group engage in normal politics? Yes, it might not kill people for a bit, mainly because it plans to do so when that's necessary to advance its cause or--even better---when it takes power.
Hizballah's maximum goal is to seize state power in Lebanon and to drive out all Western influence, while wiping Israel off the map and extending Islamist rule over the entire region. But that doesn't mean it can't have interim goals. It's minimum goal (already accomplished) is to become the strongest single force in the country, to build up a powerful, highly trained militia, to attack Israel whenever it desires, and to gain full control of all Shi'a areas in the country especially in south Lebanon.
How does involvement in electoral politics prove-and the same applies to Hamas-that it doesn't remain a revolutionary Islamist group promoting Iranian and Syrian influence which will indulge in terrorism when it feels that tactic to be useful?
And how could anyone be so dumb not to understand this?
By the way, he knows nothing about how Hizballah has behaved in politics. What have been its efforts? To gain control of the government or at least veto power, to prevent any attempt to disarm its militia or limit its arms' smuggling (Syrian arms paid for with Iranian money).
And why did Hizballah walk out of the government the first time? Over its demand to kill the international investigation of the murder of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and a dozen other terrorist acts.
In other words, the "moderate parliamentary" Hizballah left the government in order to protect previous terrorist attacks from being punished. Doesn't this show their continued involvement in...terrorism?
Yet even this nonsense is dimmed by what Brennan says next. It just so happens that Hizballah stopped doing terrorism because it was entering politics? Has Brennan forgotten the attacks on Israel which triggered a massive war, so destructive for Lebanon, just two years earlier? Hizballah claimed victory but suffered material defeat.
Note the inability of administration officials-this isn't the first time-to discount totally the fact that force sometimes has a deterrent effect. Contemplate the meaning of that for America's future foreign policy.
But that's what he said before taking office. After his Jihad-endorsing speech, Brennan answered questions. Only one newspaper in the world published the transcript, as far as I can discover, the Seoul Times in South Korea. But Brennan's statement can be found online in a sound recording.
Let me point out that he was answering a question from Bob Dreyfuss of the far-left The Nation magazine, who is not exactly a flaming American patriot. Dreyfuss mentioned that he has had personal discussions with Brennan in which the latter, "suggested that it might be possible to have a dialogue with Hamas and Hezbollah."
[Dreyfuss is determined to "out" Brennan as he tries to pull him further to the left. On his blog, Dreyfuss writes: "In fact, as I alluded to in my question, Brennan had told me (before taking a job in the Obama administration, but while serving as Obama's top adviser on intelligence issues) that talking to Hamas and Hezbollah is the right thing to do."]
Brennan didn't deny it but did say he thought Hamas was still a terrorist group. [This might just be for public consumption. Privately, if what he says about Hizballah is true--once a movement runs candidates that must mean to him that it is a candidate for being an American ally.]
But here's what he said about Hizballah:
"Hezbollah started out as purely a terrorist organization back in the early 1980s and has evolved significantly over time. And now it has members of parliament, in the cabinet; there are lawyers, doctors, others who are part of the Hezbollah organization.
"However, within Hezbollah, there's still a terrorist core. And hopefully those elements within the Shia community in Lebanon and within Hezbollah at large - they're going to continue to look at that extremist terrorist core as being something that is anathema to what, in fact, they're trying to accomplish in terms of their aspirations about being part of the political process in Lebanon.
And so, quite frankly, I'm pleased to see that a lot of Hezbollah individuals are in fact renouncing that type of terrorism and violence and are trying to participate in the political process in a very legitimate fashion."
So in other words it cannot be terrorist because it has parliamentarians, doctors, and even lawyers. Sticking with doctors for the moment, I can think of terrorist doctors who led some of the most terrorist PLO and Palestinian groups, the number-two leader of al-Qaida, and several of Hamas's top leaders. And by the way, doesn't Hamas have parliamentarians and cabinet members?
You see, friends, that's why I use the word "stupid" here even though, forgive me, it isn't a proper academic or analytical term. The following is my satire, not an actual quote:
Brennan: Hizballah can't be terrorist because they have cabinet members, lawyers, and doctors but Hamas is terrorist.
Reporter: But doesn't Hamas have cabinet members, lawyers, and doctors, too?
Brennan: Um, er, uh....
You don't make a statement so easily reduced to rubble if you really understand your topic.
As for "terrorist core," what are we talking about, some small marginal group? In Arabic, Hizballah leaders are constantly explaining there is no such thing as a "military" and a "civilian" wing. They speak freely of their devotion to Iran's regime and the parliamentarians talk about their devout loyalty to the same leaders who give orders to the militia and for terrorist operations.
And who are "a lot of Hezbollah individuals" renouncing terrorism and violence? Don't you get it, Brennan, that Hezbollah never ever had to renounce terrorism and violence to enter politics? (Neither did Hamas for that matter.)
Here are just two examples among many regarding things the president's terrorism advisor is unaware.
Nawaf Musawi, head of Hizballah's "political wing" says:
"Fundamentally, our role in the party is Jihad work. Without it, there's no value or role for Lebanon. If I had the opportunity to go back, I would have chosen the path of military jihad, because the position of a true warrior (muhajid) is more important than that of a member of parliament."
And here is Hizballah second-in-command Naim Qassem:
"All political, social and jihad work is tied to the decisions of this leadership. The same leadership that directs the parliamentary and government work also leads jihad actions in the struggle against Israel."
Moreover, is Brennan unaware of the fact that:
--Hizballah's arms are paid for by Iran and supplied by Syria, Is the United States going to compete with their influence when Hizballah leaders admit the organization was formed and ran for parliament only with approval from Tehran?
--Does Brennan know the name of Hizballah's political party?
--Has he any clue that Hizballah buys influence with Iranian money?
--Is he aware that Hizballah has been repeatedly threatening to wage terror attacks on UNIFIL if it tries to fulfill its UN mandate of keeping the group out of the south?
--Does he recall that Hizballah launched an invasion of the Christian and Druze areas, being stopped only because of ferocious fighting by the Druze militia?
--Has he ever read any of the antisemitic, anti-American speeches made by Hizballah leaders?
--Is he aware at all of Hizballah involvement in terrorist acts against Americans, including kidnappings, murders, and the assault on the Marine barracks to name a few examples? (Leaving aside a long list of attacks on Israel and the terrorist bombing of the Jewish center in Argentina with great loss of life?)
--Incidentally, shouldn't someone in his position be talking about punishing, not rewarding, terrorists with so much American blood on their hands? Shouldn't he be setting some tough preconditions--turn over those responsible, apologize and formally reject terrorism--before talking about U.S. support for Hizballah?
--Extra credit question: How do you think Lebanese opponents of Hizballah--which include the majority of Christians, Sunni Muslims, and Druze, along with a Shia minority--feel about having the world's leading democracy endorse those who want to turn their country into a nightmare dictatorship? How do you think Hizballah leaders and Iran's regime feels in reading stuff like Brennan's speech? Compare and contrast.
I'll stop here but there's a lot more one can say. This man is dangerously ignorant and holds very scary policy views. There is something seriously wrong with an administration who would have such a man as its counterterrorist advisor.
Frankly, Brennan should be pressed into resigning or at least subjected to some serious and detailed questioning about his views, statements, and alleged knowledge. "It seems," as one Syrian dissident put it, "that instead of peeling Syria away from Iran, Obama administration's strategy is peeling America away from the West."
http://www.rightsidenews.com/200908115906/editorial/brennan-on-hizballah-they-cant-be-terrorists-they-have-lawyers.html
Sunday, August 9, 2009
IS OBAMA A HUGE SECURITY RISK FOR THE USA FOR HIS AL QAEDA LINKS? AND HOW!
Obama and Odinga: The True Story"
Posted by africanpress on August 10, 2008
By Paula Abeles Friday, August 8, 2008
The mainstream media has justified ignoring this story based on a “conspiracy theory” chain email (politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/465) making the rounds from some African missionaries. Politifact.com examined the email—which claims Obama gave $1MM to Odinga’s campaign—and declared it “ a LIAR, LIAR, pants on fire”.
However, the underlying (more important issues) are verifiably true. In August and September 2006, Senator Barack Obama traveled to South Africa, Chad, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Chad and Kenya as a congressional delegation of one (Codel Obama) (“Codel Obama” The Hill 9/7/2006) While in Kenya, Obama consistently appeared at the side of fellow Luo Raila Odinga (“your agent for change’), who was running for President. (“Senator Rebukes Kenya’s Corruption” Chicago Sun Times 8/29/2006)
Because of his African heritage, Obama was treated as a virtual “Head of State” in Kenya While campaigning with Odinga, Obama was openly critical of governmental corruption under President Mibaki –usually a fair, if undiplomatic, criticism from an objective observer.
However, Kibaki’s government has been better than most—and Odinga has his own corruption issues.(“Loud and Populist, But No Political Outsider” The Guardian 12/29/2007)
Obama’s partisan support for Odinga was considered so transparent, that the Kenyan Government spokesman, Alfred Matua, complained of political posturing to aid Odinga’s election chances: “It is very clear that the senator has been used as a puppet to perpetuate opposition politics,”(“Walking The World Stage” Newsweek 9/11/06)
And, “…we earlier thought he was mature in his assessment of Kenyan and African politics,” Mutua told AFP.”We forgive him because it is his first time in the Senate and he is yet to mature into understanding issues of foreign policy,” he said.”(“Obama’s Kenya Honeymoon Ends Abruptly After Graft Rebuke” 8/29/06) Subsequently, Ambassador Ogingo Ogego made a public complaint to the US.(“Kenyan Envoy Kicks Off Diplomatic Row” My Africa 9/27/2006)
Raila Odinga subsequently lost the controversial (probably rigged) presidential election. In what appeared to many—including Human Rights Watch– as a coordinated strategy from the top, (“Violence We Fled was Planned, Say Kenyan Refugees” Reuters 1/26/2008 and “Kenya: Violence Planned Before Poll, Says Report” The Nation 3/18/2008) his Luo supporters (a core of whom call themselves
The Taliban”(“Ethnic Gangs Rile Kenyan Slums” Newsweek 1/10/08)) engaged in what US Envoy Jendayi Frazer called “clear ethnic cleansing” (“US Envoy Calls Violence in Kenya ‘Ethnic Cleansing’” USA Today 1/30/2008) of the Kikuyu opposition.
Odinga’s supporters went on a rampage—burning Kikuyu homes and businesses, (“Ethnic Cleansing in Luoland” The Economist 2/7/2008) raping Kikuyu women, and murdering everyone in their path—including at least 50 Christian Kikuyu woman & children who had sought refuge in a church. They burned them alive. (“Mob Burns Kenyans Seeking Refuge In Church” CNN 1/10/2008)
“We have evidence that ODM [Odinga’s party] politicians and local leaders actively fomented some post-election violence,” Georgette Gagnon, acting Africa director for the New York based Human Rights Watch (HRW), said on Thursday.” (Violence We Fled was Planned, Say Kenyan Refugees” Ibid)
So: who is Raila Odinga that Senator Obama would expend his political capital and risk the goodwill of half the population of Kenya?
Their relationship is unclear. The BBC initially reported that Obama and Odinga were first cousins.(“Odinga Says Obama is His Cousin” 1/8/2008) The Obama campaign has since denied a familial relationship. Raila Odinga’s father Oginga Odinga was leader of the “Kenya People’s Union” and perceived as a “committed socialist” (“Oginga Odinga: Kenya’s Most Persecuted Politician” Kenya: Key Issues 8/21.2002).
Odinga Sr. was also the political ally of fellow Luo; Barack Obama Sr., Obama's father. (The Risks of Knowledge (Ohio University Press, 2004) p. 182)
What we do know about Odinga is not good. A former Minister of Energy, Odinga is reported to have been set up in the oil business by the al Bakri Group and Muammar Quaddafi (“How Rich is Raila-The ODM Kenya Presidential Aspirant?” African Press 4/26/2007) Abdel Qader Bakri (or- Abdulkader al Bakri) was listed on the infamous “Golden Chain”–an internal Al-Queda list of wealthy Saudi financial sponsors seized by Bosnian police in a Islamic “charity” raid in 2001. (“Terrorist Financing Staff Monograph 9/11 Commission and “The Golden Chain”)
According to his website, Odinga was educated in Communist East Germany, (Herder Institute, Leipzig & Otto von Guericke Tech. Institute, Magdeburg) (http://www.raila07.com/) Odinga’s eldest son is named “Fidel” (http://www.raila07.com/)
Perhaps most troubling is Odinga’s links to Islamic extremists in Kenya. According to Voice of America and the Evangelical Alliance of Kenya, on 8/29/07, Odinga signed a secret agreement (exposed 11/27) with Sheikh Abdullah Abdi of the National Muslim
Leaders Forum (NAMLEF) in which he agreed to institute Islamic law in exchange for Abdi’s support (eakenya.org)–thereby potentially disenfranchising and curtailing the liberties of millions of Christian Kenyan women. Further, he promised that Muslims suspected of terrorism would be safe from extradition—thereby establishing a ‘safe haven’ for terrorists in Kenya.
After the public outcry, Odinga denied signing a secret agreement. Angry at Odinga’s apparent repudiation, a member of NAMLEF subsequently released the agreement to the press. Odinga then claimed the document was a forgery, but acknowledged a secret agreement had been signed in exchange for Muslim support.
Finally, under constant pressure, Odinga released what he claimed was the actual document (“Real” MOU) a considerably watered down version of the original; but still anathema to many Christian groups. “In response to the revelations, The Evangelical Alliance of Kenya released a statement in which church leaders said Raila, in both MOUs, ‘comes across as a presumptive Muslim president bent on forcing Islamic law, religion and culture down the throats of the Kenyan people in total disregard of the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of freedom of worship and equal protection of the law’” (“Concerns Raised Over Alleged Vow To Enforce Islamic Law in Kenya” Christian Post 12/18/2007)
To many westerners, the idea of imposing Sharia in a predominantly Christian country may have seemed fanciful. However, Kenya has had Sharia courts for family law (not criminal law)—called Khadi courts—since 1963.
For the US and “the war on terror”—the most worrisome section—contained in both agreements– concerns extradition (or renditions) of suspected terrorists to the US andelsewhere.
The Kibaki government had been a leading supporter of the US’s efforts to dismantle Al-Queda cells in Kenya (National Commission of Terrorist Attacks on the United States- 9/11 Report) and elsewhere.
Raila Odinga made opposition to the government’s crackdown of suspected Al Queda supporters a cornerstone of his campaign “In Kimanthi’s view, ‘only some of the leaders’…were Al Queda sympathizers. The renditions- along with frequent police sweeps on the Swahili coast-had become an emotional issue in the presidential race.
Islamic outrage had placed the incumbent, Kibaki, on the defensive and provided Raila Odinga with a tool to rally the support of Kenya’s Muslims.” (“The African Front” New York Times Magazine 12/23/2007) And, “Our government will not be held at ransom to extradite Muslims to foreign lands”, Odinga told supporters in the coastal city of Mombassa. ‘This government is behaving as if it is still a colony.’” (“Outcome of Kenyan Election Could Impact Anti-Terror Cooperation” CNSNews.com 10/17/2007)
So, how much of a national security concern is this? Well, actually: huge “…
proximity to the volatile states…including Somalia and Sudan have made Kenya especially vulnerable, in the views of counterterrorism experts, to the call for jihad. Since the early 1990s, the mosques of Mombasa and other towns have resonated with militant Islamic rhetoric.
Radical imams have preached violence against Westerners, attacked the Kenyan government as the lackey of the United States and Israel and called for the implementation of Shariah. Members of the Qaeda cells that blew up the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania…were recruited in mosques near the Indian Ocean beaches [in Kenya]“ (“The African Front” , ibid)
At no point has Senator Obama tried to distance himself from Odinga. Odinga visited Obama on a fundraising tour of the US in 2007 and it is believed that political strategist Dick Morris assisted in Odinga’s presidential campaign- gratis- at Obama’s request (Morris only acknowledged the suggestion came through “mutual friends”). (“Bridges Burned in US, Political Kingmaker Hits Africa” ABC News 11/20/2007)
Odinga has claimed that he and Obama speak regularly and whether this is true or not– the similarities between their campaigns are startling. (“Kenya Tests New Style of Politicking” The Washington Post, 12/22/2007)
In fairness to Senator Obama, after Kenya erupted into violence ( and at the request of Condoleezza Rice), Obama did record a message “. …calling for calm…” and had “..near daily conversations with the US Ambassador…and Raila Odinga” (“The Demons That Still Haunt Africa” TIME magazine 1/10/2008).
Perhaps not surprisingly, President Kibaki apparently declined to take his call.
Kibaki’s not the only one no longer filled with enthusiasm for Senator Obama’s brand of diplomacy. As Nicholas Kristof reported (with some surprise) in February: “You might think that all Kenyans would be vigorously supporting Mr. Obama. But Kenya has been fractured along ethnic lines in the last two months, so now Mr. Obama draws frenzied support from the Luos ethnic group of his ancestors, while many members of the rival Kikuyu group fervently support Hillary Rodham Clinton. (“Obama’s Kenya Roots” New York Times 2/24/2008)
Curiously, it has been the Kenyan press (almost alone) who have realized the potential implications: “… this is what may be the most memorable effect of the ODM’s [Odinga’s party] post-election campaign for State House. The longer their protests last, and the less disciplined they are – or the more atrocities like Eldoret [church massacre] are conducted in the party’s name- the more likely Kenya is to be stuck on the front pages of the world’s media and the more embarrassment it will bring to the Senator.” (“The Kiss of Death, How Kenya Could Spoil It For Obama” KenyaImagine 1/13/2008)
Clearly, Obama campaigned for someone who is corrupt, ruthless and has financial ties to terrorists. More importantly, Obama campaigned for a candidate who had the stated objective of dismantling US & Kenyan government efforts to root out Al Queda and other terrorist organizations. Organizations that had already caused the deaths of hundreds of Americans and Africans in embassy bombings.
Senator Obama’s actions—intentional or not—were in direct conflict with the efforts and interests of US national security. I think this raises serious questions about the judgment, maturity and readiness of Senator Obama.
(and even more so now as Usurper Oba-Hussein-Khomeini)
Respectfully submitted,Paula Abeles
Posted by africanpress on August 10, 2008
By Paula Abeles Friday, August 8, 2008
The mainstream media has justified ignoring this story based on a “conspiracy theory” chain email (politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/465) making the rounds from some African missionaries. Politifact.com examined the email—which claims Obama gave $1MM to Odinga’s campaign—and declared it “ a LIAR, LIAR, pants on fire”.
However, the underlying (more important issues) are verifiably true. In August and September 2006, Senator Barack Obama traveled to South Africa, Chad, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Chad and Kenya as a congressional delegation of one (Codel Obama) (“Codel Obama” The Hill 9/7/2006) While in Kenya, Obama consistently appeared at the side of fellow Luo Raila Odinga (“your agent for change’), who was running for President. (“Senator Rebukes Kenya’s Corruption” Chicago Sun Times 8/29/2006)
Because of his African heritage, Obama was treated as a virtual “Head of State” in Kenya While campaigning with Odinga, Obama was openly critical of governmental corruption under President Mibaki –usually a fair, if undiplomatic, criticism from an objective observer.
However, Kibaki’s government has been better than most—and Odinga has his own corruption issues.(“Loud and Populist, But No Political Outsider” The Guardian 12/29/2007)
Obama’s partisan support for Odinga was considered so transparent, that the Kenyan Government spokesman, Alfred Matua, complained of political posturing to aid Odinga’s election chances: “It is very clear that the senator has been used as a puppet to perpetuate opposition politics,”(“Walking The World Stage” Newsweek 9/11/06)
And, “…we earlier thought he was mature in his assessment of Kenyan and African politics,” Mutua told AFP.”We forgive him because it is his first time in the Senate and he is yet to mature into understanding issues of foreign policy,” he said.”(“Obama’s Kenya Honeymoon Ends Abruptly After Graft Rebuke” 8/29/06) Subsequently, Ambassador Ogingo Ogego made a public complaint to the US.(“Kenyan Envoy Kicks Off Diplomatic Row” My Africa 9/27/2006)
Raila Odinga subsequently lost the controversial (probably rigged) presidential election. In what appeared to many—including Human Rights Watch– as a coordinated strategy from the top, (“Violence We Fled was Planned, Say Kenyan Refugees” Reuters 1/26/2008 and “Kenya: Violence Planned Before Poll, Says Report” The Nation 3/18/2008) his Luo supporters (a core of whom call themselves
The Taliban”(“Ethnic Gangs Rile Kenyan Slums” Newsweek 1/10/08)) engaged in what US Envoy Jendayi Frazer called “clear ethnic cleansing” (“US Envoy Calls Violence in Kenya ‘Ethnic Cleansing’” USA Today 1/30/2008) of the Kikuyu opposition.
Odinga’s supporters went on a rampage—burning Kikuyu homes and businesses, (“Ethnic Cleansing in Luoland” The Economist 2/7/2008) raping Kikuyu women, and murdering everyone in their path—including at least 50 Christian Kikuyu woman & children who had sought refuge in a church. They burned them alive. (“Mob Burns Kenyans Seeking Refuge In Church” CNN 1/10/2008)
“We have evidence that ODM [Odinga’s party] politicians and local leaders actively fomented some post-election violence,” Georgette Gagnon, acting Africa director for the New York based Human Rights Watch (HRW), said on Thursday.” (Violence We Fled was Planned, Say Kenyan Refugees” Ibid)
So: who is Raila Odinga that Senator Obama would expend his political capital and risk the goodwill of half the population of Kenya?
Their relationship is unclear. The BBC initially reported that Obama and Odinga were first cousins.(“Odinga Says Obama is His Cousin” 1/8/2008) The Obama campaign has since denied a familial relationship. Raila Odinga’s father Oginga Odinga was leader of the “Kenya People’s Union” and perceived as a “committed socialist” (“Oginga Odinga: Kenya’s Most Persecuted Politician” Kenya: Key Issues 8/21.2002).
Odinga Sr. was also the political ally of fellow Luo; Barack Obama Sr., Obama's father. (The Risks of Knowledge (Ohio University Press, 2004) p. 182)
What we do know about Odinga is not good. A former Minister of Energy, Odinga is reported to have been set up in the oil business by the al Bakri Group and Muammar Quaddafi (“How Rich is Raila-The ODM Kenya Presidential Aspirant?” African Press 4/26/2007) Abdel Qader Bakri (or- Abdulkader al Bakri) was listed on the infamous “Golden Chain”–an internal Al-Queda list of wealthy Saudi financial sponsors seized by Bosnian police in a Islamic “charity” raid in 2001. (“Terrorist Financing Staff Monograph 9/11 Commission and “The Golden Chain”)
According to his website, Odinga was educated in Communist East Germany, (Herder Institute, Leipzig & Otto von Guericke Tech. Institute, Magdeburg) (http://www.raila07.com/) Odinga’s eldest son is named “Fidel” (http://www.raila07.com/)
Perhaps most troubling is Odinga’s links to Islamic extremists in Kenya. According to Voice of America and the Evangelical Alliance of Kenya, on 8/29/07, Odinga signed a secret agreement (exposed 11/27) with Sheikh Abdullah Abdi of the National Muslim
Leaders Forum (NAMLEF) in which he agreed to institute Islamic law in exchange for Abdi’s support (eakenya.org)–thereby potentially disenfranchising and curtailing the liberties of millions of Christian Kenyan women. Further, he promised that Muslims suspected of terrorism would be safe from extradition—thereby establishing a ‘safe haven’ for terrorists in Kenya.
After the public outcry, Odinga denied signing a secret agreement. Angry at Odinga’s apparent repudiation, a member of NAMLEF subsequently released the agreement to the press. Odinga then claimed the document was a forgery, but acknowledged a secret agreement had been signed in exchange for Muslim support.
Finally, under constant pressure, Odinga released what he claimed was the actual document (“Real” MOU) a considerably watered down version of the original; but still anathema to many Christian groups. “In response to the revelations, The Evangelical Alliance of Kenya released a statement in which church leaders said Raila, in both MOUs, ‘comes across as a presumptive Muslim president bent on forcing Islamic law, religion and culture down the throats of the Kenyan people in total disregard of the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of freedom of worship and equal protection of the law’” (“Concerns Raised Over Alleged Vow To Enforce Islamic Law in Kenya” Christian Post 12/18/2007)
To many westerners, the idea of imposing Sharia in a predominantly Christian country may have seemed fanciful. However, Kenya has had Sharia courts for family law (not criminal law)—called Khadi courts—since 1963.
For the US and “the war on terror”—the most worrisome section—contained in both agreements– concerns extradition (or renditions) of suspected terrorists to the US andelsewhere.
The Kibaki government had been a leading supporter of the US’s efforts to dismantle Al-Queda cells in Kenya (National Commission of Terrorist Attacks on the United States- 9/11 Report) and elsewhere.
Raila Odinga made opposition to the government’s crackdown of suspected Al Queda supporters a cornerstone of his campaign “In Kimanthi’s view, ‘only some of the leaders’…were Al Queda sympathizers. The renditions- along with frequent police sweeps on the Swahili coast-had become an emotional issue in the presidential race.
Islamic outrage had placed the incumbent, Kibaki, on the defensive and provided Raila Odinga with a tool to rally the support of Kenya’s Muslims.” (“The African Front” New York Times Magazine 12/23/2007) And, “Our government will not be held at ransom to extradite Muslims to foreign lands”, Odinga told supporters in the coastal city of Mombassa. ‘This government is behaving as if it is still a colony.’” (“Outcome of Kenyan Election Could Impact Anti-Terror Cooperation” CNSNews.com 10/17/2007)
So, how much of a national security concern is this? Well, actually: huge “…
proximity to the volatile states…including Somalia and Sudan have made Kenya especially vulnerable, in the views of counterterrorism experts, to the call for jihad. Since the early 1990s, the mosques of Mombasa and other towns have resonated with militant Islamic rhetoric.
Radical imams have preached violence against Westerners, attacked the Kenyan government as the lackey of the United States and Israel and called for the implementation of Shariah. Members of the Qaeda cells that blew up the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania…were recruited in mosques near the Indian Ocean beaches [in Kenya]“ (“The African Front” , ibid)
At no point has Senator Obama tried to distance himself from Odinga. Odinga visited Obama on a fundraising tour of the US in 2007 and it is believed that political strategist Dick Morris assisted in Odinga’s presidential campaign- gratis- at Obama’s request (Morris only acknowledged the suggestion came through “mutual friends”). (“Bridges Burned in US, Political Kingmaker Hits Africa” ABC News 11/20/2007)
Odinga has claimed that he and Obama speak regularly and whether this is true or not– the similarities between their campaigns are startling. (“Kenya Tests New Style of Politicking” The Washington Post, 12/22/2007)
In fairness to Senator Obama, after Kenya erupted into violence ( and at the request of Condoleezza Rice), Obama did record a message “. …calling for calm…” and had “..near daily conversations with the US Ambassador…and Raila Odinga” (“The Demons That Still Haunt Africa” TIME magazine 1/10/2008).
Perhaps not surprisingly, President Kibaki apparently declined to take his call.
Kibaki’s not the only one no longer filled with enthusiasm for Senator Obama’s brand of diplomacy. As Nicholas Kristof reported (with some surprise) in February: “You might think that all Kenyans would be vigorously supporting Mr. Obama. But Kenya has been fractured along ethnic lines in the last two months, so now Mr. Obama draws frenzied support from the Luos ethnic group of his ancestors, while many members of the rival Kikuyu group fervently support Hillary Rodham Clinton. (“Obama’s Kenya Roots” New York Times 2/24/2008)
Curiously, it has been the Kenyan press (almost alone) who have realized the potential implications: “… this is what may be the most memorable effect of the ODM’s [Odinga’s party] post-election campaign for State House. The longer their protests last, and the less disciplined they are – or the more atrocities like Eldoret [church massacre] are conducted in the party’s name- the more likely Kenya is to be stuck on the front pages of the world’s media and the more embarrassment it will bring to the Senator.” (“The Kiss of Death, How Kenya Could Spoil It For Obama” KenyaImagine 1/13/2008)
Clearly, Obama campaigned for someone who is corrupt, ruthless and has financial ties to terrorists. More importantly, Obama campaigned for a candidate who had the stated objective of dismantling US & Kenyan government efforts to root out Al Queda and other terrorist organizations. Organizations that had already caused the deaths of hundreds of Americans and Africans in embassy bombings.
Senator Obama’s actions—intentional or not—were in direct conflict with the efforts and interests of US national security. I think this raises serious questions about the judgment, maturity and readiness of Senator Obama.
(and even more so now as Usurper Oba-Hussein-Khomeini)
Respectfully submitted,Paula Abeles
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
IRAN PLANS TO BLOCK GULF WITH ENEMY SHIPS AND SUPPORT TERRORISM IN SYRIA
Russian Yakhont Missile to deploy on Syria's Coastline?
David Eshel writes
The recent delivery of an advanced Russian-made anti-ship missile to Iran has Israeli defense officials concerned it will be transferred to Syria and Hizbullah and used against the Israel Navy in a future conflict. According to media reports, the P-800 Yakhont, the supersonic cruise missile can be launched from the coast and hit sea-borne targets up to 300 kilometers away. The missile carries a 200-kilogram warhead and flies a meter-and-a-half above sea level, making it extremely difficult to intercept.
The supersonic P-800 Yakhont (Gem) is a ramjet version of P-80 Zubr (SS-N-7 Starbright). The ship, submarine and coastal-launched Yakhont is launched from the unified ampoule-shaped transport-launching container (TLC). The container is 9 m long, 10.71m in diameter. The firing range reaches 300 km (162 nmi.) when flying along a combined trajectory and 120 kg (265 lb.) when following only a low-altitude trajectory. Flight speed varying over the range from M=2.0 to M=2.5 is provided by the kerosene-fueled multi-mode liquid-fuel ramjet. The P-800 Bolid is the encapsulated, submarine launched version of Yakhont. An air-launched version of the missile with the take-off weight of 2,500 kg (5,507 lb.) is also being developed. The closest American counterparts, the Tomahawk and Harpoon missiles, are subsonic; the best French antiship missile, the Exocet, has a range of only 45 miles.
Although its performance looks good on paper, these types of missiles lack sophisticated targeting capability since they need accurate targeting data to be provided from a great distance (hundreds of kilometers away) to operate effectively. While this is more feasible for air-launched operating schemes, the likelihood of the missile acquiring the correct target from this range is questionable, particularly under complex electronic warfare environment.
When engaging smaller targets, in open sea crowded with commercial shipping, such as the Eastern Med - this missile could be quite a serious threat to civilian vessels but is less likely to defeat protected, prepared and properly responding military vessels. Since the missile closes-in on its target at supersonic speed, the most likely line of defense against it are 'soft kill' ECM. Engagement by close-in weapon systems (CIWS) or point defense missiles which are effective against high subsonic missiles (such as C-802, Exocet or Harpoon) could be too late for active defense. However, being able to engage such threats from extended range, by defensive systems, such as the Standard SM-2/3 or IAI/Barak 8 will be very effective.
David Eshel writes
The recent delivery of an advanced Russian-made anti-ship missile to Iran has Israeli defense officials concerned it will be transferred to Syria and Hizbullah and used against the Israel Navy in a future conflict. According to media reports, the P-800 Yakhont, the supersonic cruise missile can be launched from the coast and hit sea-borne targets up to 300 kilometers away. The missile carries a 200-kilogram warhead and flies a meter-and-a-half above sea level, making it extremely difficult to intercept.
The supersonic P-800 Yakhont (Gem) is a ramjet version of P-80 Zubr (SS-N-7 Starbright). The ship, submarine and coastal-launched Yakhont is launched from the unified ampoule-shaped transport-launching container (TLC). The container is 9 m long, 10.71m in diameter. The firing range reaches 300 km (162 nmi.) when flying along a combined trajectory and 120 kg (265 lb.) when following only a low-altitude trajectory. Flight speed varying over the range from M=2.0 to M=2.5 is provided by the kerosene-fueled multi-mode liquid-fuel ramjet. The P-800 Bolid is the encapsulated, submarine launched version of Yakhont. An air-launched version of the missile with the take-off weight of 2,500 kg (5,507 lb.) is also being developed. The closest American counterparts, the Tomahawk and Harpoon missiles, are subsonic; the best French antiship missile, the Exocet, has a range of only 45 miles.
Although its performance looks good on paper, these types of missiles lack sophisticated targeting capability since they need accurate targeting data to be provided from a great distance (hundreds of kilometers away) to operate effectively. While this is more feasible for air-launched operating schemes, the likelihood of the missile acquiring the correct target from this range is questionable, particularly under complex electronic warfare environment.
When engaging smaller targets, in open sea crowded with commercial shipping, such as the Eastern Med - this missile could be quite a serious threat to civilian vessels but is less likely to defeat protected, prepared and properly responding military vessels. Since the missile closes-in on its target at supersonic speed, the most likely line of defense against it are 'soft kill' ECM. Engagement by close-in weapon systems (CIWS) or point defense missiles which are effective against high subsonic missiles (such as C-802, Exocet or Harpoon) could be too late for active defense. However, being able to engage such threats from extended range, by defensive systems, such as the Standard SM-2/3 or IAI/Barak 8 will be very effective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
